To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

What matters: the maturing of greater Phoenix

What matters: the maturing of greater Phoenix 1998

1998 Edition:
Indicators of Our
Quality of Life
What Matters
in Greater Phoenix
MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
This project was made
possible through the
financial support of:
The Arizona Republic
Greater Phoenix
Economic Council (GPEC)
Honeywell
Motorola
DMB Associates
Xerox Corporation
In 1996, ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy began asking
residents and leaders in Greater Phoenix, “What does quality of life mean
to you, and how do you measure it?” After an 18-month process, the
first volume of What Matters was published in September 1997, creating a
baseline of opinion and data about “quality of life” and what it means to
the people who live here. This second volume of What Matters updates
the baseline reported in the 1997 edition.
To date, more than 2,300 people from all walks of life and every corner of
the metropolitan area have participated in this community dialogue about
quality of life through focus groups, public meetings, individual
interviews, regionwide telephone surveys and correspondence.
In addition, representatives from more than 80 local, state and national
organizations have been engaged during the past two years, including (in
alphabetical order):
American Lung Association • Arizona Audubon Council • Arizona
Commission on the Arts • Arizona Commission for Postsecondary
Education • Arizona Department of Economic Security • Arizona
Department of Education • Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality • Arizona Department of Health Services • Arizona Department of
Transportation • Arizona Education Association • Arizona Federation of
Teachers Unions • Arizona Hospital and Health Care Association • Arizona
House of Representatives • Arizona Humanities Council • Arizona
Libraries Association • Arizonans for Cultural Development • Arizona
Office of Tourism • Arizona Public Service Company (APS) • Arizona Rail
Passengers Association • Office of the Arizona State Treasurer • ATLATL
Inc. • Arizona Transit Association • ASU Center for Business Research •
ASU College of Business • ASU College of Fine Arts • ASU School of
Public Affairs • Central Arizona Homebuilders • Central Arizona Shelter
Services (CASS) • City of Chandler • Children’s Action Alliance •
Community Housing Resources • COMPAS • Downtown Phoenix
Partnership • East Southern Avenue Property Owners Association • Flatt &
Associates • Friendly House • Gallagher & Kennedy • City of Glendale •
Goldwater Institute • Office of the Arizona Governor • Governor’s Council
on Spinal Injuries • Greater Phoenix Urban League • Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations • League of Arizona Cities and
Towns • Maricopa County Attorney’s Office • Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors • Maricopa County Community College District • Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Office • Maricopa County Sports Commission • City of
Mesa Police Department • National Council of La Raza • Norwest Bank •
NotLA • O’Neil Associates • Peoria School District • Phoenix Arts
Commission • Phoenix Chamber of Commerce • Office of the Phoenix
Police Chief • Office of the Phoenix City Manager • Phoenix College •
Phoenix Union High School District • Quality of Life Stewardship Council
• Regional Public Transportation Authority • Roosevelt Action Association
• Rural/Metro Fire Department • Self Employment Loan Fund • City of
Scottsdale • Southwest Airlines • Superior Court of Arizona • Phoenix
office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development •
Valley Leadership • Westmarc
3
__
What Matters in 1998: Summary Table ................................................................5
What Matters in Our Quality of Life ....................................................................6
What’s New and Different in 1998 ......................................................................6
How to Read This Report ....................................................................................9
Inter-Regional Comparison Indicators Summary ........................................10-11
Education Indicators
Stanford Achievement Test Scores ......................................................................14
Graduation Rates ................................................................................................15
Parents’ Perceptions of Public and Private School Quality..................................15
Incidents on School Grounds..............................................................................16
Parents’ Perceptions of Public and Private School Safety ....................................16
Ratings of Local Colleges and Universities..........................................................17
Perception of Local College and University Quality ..........................................17
Families and Youth Indicators
Median Home Sales Price and Home Affordability............................................20
Perception of Mortgage Payment Burden ..........................................................20
Average Apartment Rent ....................................................................................21
Perception of Rent Payment Burden ..................................................................21
Estimated Child and Total Poverty Rates............................................................22
Perception of Child Poverty ................................................................................22
Reported Cases of Child Abuse ..........................................................................23
Perception of Child Abuse ..................................................................................23
Petitions Filed for Domestic Violence Orders of Protection ..............................24
Perception of Domestic and Spousal Violence....................................................24
Special Focus: Child Care....................................................................................25
Public Safety and Crime Indicators
Violent Crime Rate ............................................................................................28
Perception of Violent Crime ..............................................................................28
Property Crime Rate............................................................................................29
Perception of Property Crime..............................................................................29
Special Focus: Personal Safety..............................................................................30
Juvenile Arrests for Violent, Property and Drug Offenses ..................................31
Perception of Gangs ............................................................................................31
Average Law Enforcement Response Time ........................................................32
Perception of Law Enforcement Quality ............................................................32
Economy Indicators
Cost of Living......................................................................................................34
Perception of Change in Cost of Living..............................................................34
Per Capita Personal Income ................................................................................35
Perception of Change in Household Income......................................................35
Unemployment Rate ..........................................................................................36
Perception of Job Security ..................................................................................36
Special Focus: Job Satisfaction ............................................................................37
Special Focus: Internet Connectivity ..................................................................38
Contents
Project Manager/
Principal Researcher:
Ryan Johnson
With Assistance From:
Jamie Goodwin-White
Rob Melnick
Nancy Welch
Rupam Raja
Mary Jo Waits
Jack Pfister
Publication
Coordinator:
Karen Leland
Original Design:
Davia Design
1998 Update:
ASU Creative
Communications Group
The Morrison Institute for
Public Policy (School of
Public Affairs, College of
Public Programs) is an
Arizona State University
resource for objective
public policy analysis
and expertise. The
Morrison Institute
researches public
policy issues, informs
policy makers and
residents and advises
leaders on choices and
actions.
4
__
Health and Health Care Indicators
Persons Reporting No Health Insurance..........................................................40
Selected Causes of Death..................................................................................41
Current Accreditation Status of Hospitals........................................................42
Perception of Hospital Quality ........................................................................42
Current Accreditation Status of Healthcare Plans............................................43
Perception of Healthcare Quality ....................................................................43
Environment Indicators
Number of Days Exceeding Federal Air Quality Standards ............................46
Special Focus: Perception of Air Quality ..........................................................47
Water Consumption ........................................................................................48
Type of Water Residents Drink at Home ........................................................48
Acreage of Selected Land Uses..........................................................................49
Perception of Desert Preservation Efforts ........................................................49
Special Focus: Urban Growth Concepts ..........................................................50
Population Growth ..........................................................................................51
Perception of Population Growth ....................................................................51
Transportation and Mobility Indicators
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled ............................................................................54
Perception of Freeway System ..........................................................................54
Annual Per Capita Miles of Transit Service ......................................................55
Perception of Bus Transit System......................................................................55
Special Focus: Commute..................................................................................56
Arts, Culture and Recreation Indicators
Financial Support for the Arts ..........................................................................58
Perception of Arts and Cultural Amenities ......................................................58
Attendance at Art and Cultural Events, Museums ..........................................59
Residents Reporting a Visit to a Museum or Arts/Cultural Event ..................59
Per Capita Attendance at Professional Sporting Events....................................60
Residents Reporting Attending a Sports Event ................................................60
Acreage of Parks and Golf Courses ..................................................................61
Perception of Parks’ Quality ............................................................................61
Community Indicators
Per Capita Contributions to United Way ........................................................64
Perception of How Business Gives Back to Community ................................64
Volunteerism at 20 Agencies and Organizations..............................................65
Reported Volunteerism ....................................................................................65
Special Focus: Sense of Community ................................................................66
Hate Crimes......................................................................................................67
Perception of Racism Problem ........................................................................67
Voter Turnout ..................................................................................................68
Perception of Local Government Quality ........................................................68
Taxes and Tax Burden ......................................................................................69
Perception of Tax Burden ................................................................................69
Data Notes and Sources..............................................................................70-71
Contents continued
Copyright 1998 by the
Arizona Board of Regents
for and on behalf of
Arizona State University
and its Morrison Institute
for Public Policy
5
__
What Matters in 1998: Status of Selected Quality of Life Indicators1
Standardized test scores (Stanford 9) at
public schools are on the rise. Graduation
rates at public high schools are increasing.
Incidents at public schools resulting in
charges against students are on the rise.
Median home prices are rising, but
affordability is still good comparatively.
Average apartment rent has risen three
years in a row.
Estimated child poverty has declined for a
second straight year.
Reports of child abuse have risen recently.
Violent crime rate has declined for three
consecutive years.
Property crime rate declined, but is still
highest among eight western peer regions.
The violent crime arrest rate for juveniles
is down.
Per capita personal income has risen four
consecutive years.
Unemployment has remained very low in
recent years. Compared to eight western
peers, Phoenix only lags behind Denver.
All hospitals and most health care plans in
Greater Phoenix are accredited, and many
are highly rated in accreditation standards.
Violations for three major air pollutants are
down in recent years.
Population growth has been rapid during
the 1990s with average growth >3%
annually.
Per capita daily vehicle miles traveled are
rising consistently in recent years.
Per capita miles of transit service in
Phoenix is lowest among seven peer
regions.
Attendance at local art and cultural events
has risen in recent years.
Volunteerism has risen in recent years.
Schools are “excellent” or “good.”
(public school parents only) 2
Schools are “very” or “somewhat safe.”
(public school parents only) 2
Paying the monthly mortgage is
“a struggle.” (homeowners only) 2
Paying the monthly rent is “a struggle.”
(renters) 2
Child poverty is a “severe problem.”
Child abuse is a “severe problem.”
Violent crime is a “severe problem.”
Property crime is a “severe problem.”
Gangs are a “severe problem.”
Earned more household income last year
than the year prior.
Think it is “not likely” they will lose their
job or be laid off in the coming year.
(employed persons only)2
Local hospitals are “good.”
Local health care is “good.”
Air quality is either “fair” or “poor.”
Population growth is occurring “too fast.”
The region’s freeway system is “good.”
The region’s bus transit system is “good.”
Attended an art or cultural event in the
past year.
Have volunteered in the last year.
1 Not all indicators and perceptions contained in the report are summarized here.
2 Because this question was asked of a sub-sample of the 1,024 residents in the survey, the margin of error is higher than +/- 3%.
• This was the first year this question was asked, and thus, no comparison to 1997 is possible.
* Indicates data do not reveal a clear case or are highly subject to personal interpretation.
FACTS PERCEPTIONS
regional indicator Are things
improving?
‘97
survey
‘98
resident perceptions survey
YES
NO
*
NO
YES
NO
YES
*
*
YES
YES
YES
YES
*
NO
NO
YES
YES
70%
83%
10%
21%
25%
33%
•
•
46%
42%
79%
•
•
87%
77%
29%
21%
67%
•
65%
77%
9%
16%
29%
44%
40%
31%
43%
47%
68%
56%
44%
88%
78%
34%
17%
71%
51%
Education
Families
and Youth
Public Safety
and Crime
Economy
Health and
Health Care
Environment
Transportation
and Mobility
Arts, Culture
and Recreation
Community
6
__
What Matters in Our Quality of Life
For years, the citizens of Greater Phoenix have talked about it, journalists have written about it, and
politicians have campaigned on it. But what is “quality of life”? And when people think about
quality of life, what matters most?
After engaging more than 1,100
citizens and opinion leaders in a
community dialogue about quality
of life, ASU’s Morrison Institute for
Public Policy first answered these
questions in September 1997 when
it published What Matters in
Greater Phoenix. For the first time,
the often-used but never-before
quantified concept of ‘quality of
life’ had been locally defined and
measured. A baseline for future
quality of life discussions had been
established. This second edition of
What Matters updates both the data
and perceptual indicators, and adds
a handful of important new ones.
The categories that provide the
framework for this discussion of
quality of life are presented in Table 1. These broad categories are themes under which indicators or
specific measures are organized. But they also serve another important function. By annually
prioritizing these categories through a regional survey, and tracking them over time, they serve as a
Table 1. What Matters Most in
Greater Phoenix’s Regional Quality of Life?*
In surveys conducted in 1997 and 1998, residents of Greater
Phoenix were asked to rank the most important factors among
nine quality of life categories.
* Margin of error for both surveys +/-3.0%. Please see sources for
information about how the surveys were administered and changes
made in the reporting of this question for 1998.
Table 2. What’s New and Different in What Matters 1998
Based on feedback received from What Matters 1997, a number of changes have been made to this report. There
are new indicators and old indicators which have changed. Here are the highlights:
• Urban Growth Concepts: In a special focus section for 1998, 75% of residents indicate they like the idea of
urban growth boundaries, but only 36% acknowledge familiarity with recent plans to manage growth (p. 50).
• Internet Connectivity: Data indicate that Greater Phoenix lags most of its western peer regions in the number of
internet hosts per 1,000 population (p. 38).
• Perception of How Business Gives Back: Seventy-four percent of residents give the local business community
a “good” or “fair” rating for how they give back to the larger community (p. 64).
• Hospitals and Health Care: Data from the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations
and the National Committee for Quality Assurance indicate that Greater Phoenix enjoys very good hospitals and
healthcare organizations. In turn, most residents believe that local hospitals and health care is either excellent or
good. Sixty-one percent of residents, however believe that an insurance company or their doctor has more say in
their healthcare than they do (p. 42-43).
• Child Care: Data from the Children’s Defense Fund indicates that residents of Greater Phoenix whose children
receive child care spend more than $4,000 per child per year, on average, for child care. Forty-three percent of
residents reported that the overall cost of child care in the region is “affordable” (p.25).
• Violent and Property Crime: Instead of asking about “crime” in general, What Matters 1998 asks residents how
they feel about violent and property crime separately (p.28-29).
1997
(n=1,012)
1. Education (26%)
2. Public Safety and Crime (20%)
3. Families and Youth (19%)
4. Health/Health Care (9%)
5. Economy (8%)
6. Environment (6%)
7. Transportation/Mobility (3%)
8. Community (2%)
8. Arts, Culture, Recreation (2%)
1998
(n=1,024)
1. Education (26%)
2. Families and Youth (21%)
3. Public Safety and Crime (18%)
4. Economy (9%)
5. Health/Health Care (8%)
6. Environment (7%)
7. Transportation/Mobility (3%)
7. Arts, Culture, Recreation (3%)
8. Community (2%)
7
__
gauge for our regional values. The fact that the category rankings have changed little between the
1997 and 1998 Morrison Institute/Arizona Republic Quality of Life Surveys tell us that these are the
things that are most important to the people who live in this region. In the broadest sense, these are
the things that matter; they are our regional values at this time.
Regional vs. Personal, Perception vs. Reality
As in 1997, what makes this report unique is the ability to consider quality of life not only from a
data perspective, but also from the perspective of how people who live in Greater Phoenix feel about
it. By presenting both statistics and opinions, the reader can compare what residents believe about an
issue to what the facts say
(perception vs. reality). For
example, how residents feel
about the level of violent
crime in the region can be
compared with what FBI
Uniform Crime Report
data tell us about the level
of violent crime in the
region. In addition, some
indicator and opinion data enable a comparison of how residents assess their personal lives versus
what the data indicate is happening at the regional level (personal vs. regional quality of life) for
instance, how residents view what has happened to their own household income during the past
year versus what the data tell us has happened to personal income in the region.
Taken in whole, What Matters tells the story of how people in Greater Phoenix perceive the region in
which they live, what they believe is getting better and worse, how they feel about their own lives,
and where perceptions of quality of life are aligned or misaligned with the facts.
What This Report Is Intended to Be and What It Isn’t
What Matters in Greater Phoenix is intended as both a decision-making tool and a general reference
for policy makers, civic and business leaders, and citizens. To improve the quality of this tool,
feedback has been continually sought since the release of the first edition to help refine the indicators
and make the report more useable.1
Based on input received and the availability of new data, several indicators have been added for 1998
(including a few new survey questions). Other indicators have been modified; table 2 highlights the
changes made. On the whole, however, the baseline established in the first What Matters remains
intact. The information contained here reflects what many leaders and citizens said was important
to their quality of life in 1997 and 1998.
A number of people who commented on the 1997 edition asked why an overall score or composite
number was not computed for quality of life in Greater Phoenix. Indeed, as in 1997, What Matters
1998 does not offer an overall grade or composite score for quality of life in Greater Phoenix. We
choose not to compute such a number for many reasons, including the inherent problems involved
with “normalizing” the data to make each indicator consistent (i.e., some indicators are measured in
Table 3. “how would you rate...”
Our Regional Quality of Life Your Personal Quality of Life
1997 1998 1997 1998
Excellent 9% 13% 23% 26%
Good 49% 52% 55% 54%
Fair 34% 27% 18% 16%
Poor 8% 7% 4% 4%
1We are vitally interested in hearing what you think about this publication, our methodology and what could be improved
or modified in future editions. Contact information is included on the back cover of this report; all opinions are welcome.
8
__
tens or hundreds, while others are recorded in the thousands and tens of thousands). Also, we believe
it is misleading to characterize our multi-faceted region and such a complex set of issues by an over-simplification.
Instead, we prefer to let the reader decide the overall status of Greater Phoenix’s
quality of life in 1998 based on his or her reading of the facts and perceptions. Some key highlights
and findings, however, are offered in summary tables.
About “Benchmarking”
A number of comments about What Matters 1997 suggested that, now that the baseline has been
established, a series of goals or benchmarks should be set for the indicators so that policy makers
and others can begin to make changes that will ultimately result in desirable movement of the
numbers. Indeed, other regions and states have used these “benchmarking” techniques to set future
targets for their indicators and to shape public policy.
In fact, it has been our hope from the beginning
of this project that policy makers, business
organizations and citizens groups take on this
challenge by “adopting” a specific indicator or
group of indicators and begin the dialogue about
goal setting, or benchmarking. In the absence of
such an activity, the quality of life in Greater
Phoenix will simply go whichever way it goes,
and not necessarily in the direction that citizens
and leaders desire. The Morrison Institute for Public
Policy would welcome and participate in any such
discussions of benchmarking.
Why the Indicator Data
Haven’t Changed Much
A casual glance through this report will reveal the
data indicators have not shown much change
between What Matters 1997 and this updated
edition. The reason is fairly simple: The forces that
impact Greater Phoenix’s quality of life are complex
and did not occur overnight. Changes in big picture
indicators such as student performance, water
consumption, and property crime usually occur
incrementally, not immediately. Significant changes
often take years, and are typically brought about by
coordinated efforts and dedicated resources
(see benchmarking discussion above).
One final caveat about this report is in order. Although the data here represent an interesting and
valuable resource, the readers should keep in mind that few indicators tell the whole story of what is
occurring. Some indicators may over-simplify very complex circumstances and dynamics. We have
attempted to point out instances in which this is the case.
Who Chose the Indicators in What Matters?
Ten focus groups conducted with regional
opinion leaders in late 1996 resulted in a list of
more than 300 potential indicators in the nine
overarching quality of life categories. To refine
the list of indicators, public meetings and focus
groups were conducted to identify those items
that the public also thought were important. The
remaining indicators were then screened using
three questions:
• Is the indicator measurable? If so, are the
data available at regularly measured
intervals?
• Is the indicator relevant to the quality of
life of a large portion of Greater Phoenix
residents? Is it understandable to people?
• Will the indicator respond to changes in
policy and law?
Indicators that met these criteria are contained
in What Matters in Greater Phoenix.
9
__
How to Read This Report
As in the first edition, the order of chapters in What Matters 1998 reflects the responses of 1,024
residents who were asked to prioritize nine quality of life categories. Because a majority of survey
respondents indicated education was once again the most important factor in our regional quality of
life, the education chapter and indicators appear first in the report. However, other chapters have
changed places for this 1998 edition, reflecting the changes in priorities reflected in Table 1 (p. 6).
The priority of the quality of life categories and thus
the order of the report’s chapters will be tracked in
future years to identify changes in how residents view
the broad themes that constitute regional quality of
life in Greater Phoenix.
Intra-Regional Comparisons
As in the first edition, survey data are sometimes
presented in tables that contain abbreviations
that correspond to geographic subregions of
Greater Phoenix. The legend at right explains
which cities and towns are captured by each
abbreviation.
Special Focus Indicators
Those pages in the report designated as Special
Focus indicate a topic or set of indicators that are
special to this edition of What Matters. Often,
these are the “issues of the day” in Greater
Phoenix, and are highlighted through special
survey questions or data that bring new insight
to the topic.
Inter-Regional Comparisons
For certain indicators, figures for Greater Phoenix are compared with other, similarly sized or
configured western regions, such as Portland, Oregon and Denver, Colorado. These comparisons
were made only when identical data for the other region were available and where it added interest to
the analysis. Although the Los Angeles region has a much larger population base than that of Greater
Phoenix, it is included in the comparisons because it is often cited as “what we don’t want to
become.” A summary of the inter-regional comparison indicators follows on pp. 10-11.
Reading the Survey Data Tables ...
All = All 1,024 respondents to the
region wide random-sample
survey
PHX = respondents residing in the
City of Phoenix (except
Ahwatukee; see SE)
NW = Surprise, El Mirage, the Sun
Cities, Youngtown, Peoria,
Glendale
NE = Scottsdale, Paradise Valley and
Fountain Hills
SE = Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Tempe,
Queen Creek, Guadalupe,
Ahwatukee
SW = Tolleson, Avondale and Litchfield
Park
10
__
WHAT MATTERS IN 1998: Greater Phoenix vs. Western Peer Regions
Status of Selected Quality of Life Indicators
Affordability of Homes
(ranking out of 193 regions)
1997 rank*
112th
123rd
125th
146th
172nd
180th
183rd
189th
191st
Source: National Association of Homebuilders, 1998.
*ranking of 1 = most affordable in U.S.,
193= least affordable
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 20.
SAN JOSE
DENVER
GREATER PHOENIX
HOUSTON
DALLAS
LOS ANGELES
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
SEATTLE
Cost of Living
1997
117.6
107.3
105.9
103.6
100.0
98.2
Source: American Chambers of Commerce Researchers
Association (ACCRA), 1997. Data is for 4th quarter, 1997.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 34.
LOS ANGELES/LONG BEACH
PORTLAND
DENVER
GREATER PHOENIX
DALLAS
U.S. AVERAGE
Rate of Violent Crime
(violent crimes per 100,000 residents)
1996
1,278
859
784
727
710
668
562
460
Source: Crime in the United States, U.S. FBI, 1996 data
published in October 1997.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 28.
DENVER
LOS ANGELES
HOUSTON
DALLAS
PORTLAND
GREATER PHOENIX
SAN JOSE
SAN DIEGO
Per Capita Personal Income
(amount and ranking out of 320 metro areas)
1996 Rank*
$35,395 4
$31,372 13
$29,234 24
$28,513 29
$27,195 39
$26,228 53
$24,945 75
$24,282 91
$23,377 121
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, 1998.
* Ranking of 1=highest income, 320=lowest.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 35.
SAN JOSE
SEATTLE
DENVER
DALLAS
HOUSTON
PORTLAND
LA-LONG BEACH
SAN DIEGO
GREATER PHOENIX
Unemployment Rate
1996 1997
3.8% 2.8%
3.7% 3.0%
5.0% 3.3%
4.0% 3.7%
5.3% 4.2%
4.5% 4.3%
5.2% 5.0%
8.2% 6.8%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998.
Data for San Jose, Ca. were not available.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 36.
DENVER
GREATER PHOENIX
SEATTLE
DALLAS
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
HOUSTON
LOS ANGELES/LONG BEACH
Property Crime Rate
(property crimes per 100,000 residents)
1996
7,062
5,565
4,955
4,902
4,173
4,164
3,913
3,458
Source: Crime in the United States, U.S. FBI, 1996 data
published in October 1997.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 29.
SAN JOSE
GREATER PHOENIX
DALLAS
DENVER
HOUSTON
LOS ANGELES
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
11
__
Internet Hosts Per Capita*
(Internet hosts per 1,000 population, county)
1997
Santa Clara (San Jose, CA) 398.60
Denver (Denver, CO) 85.27
San Diego (San Diego, CA) 61.60
King (Seattle, WA) 46.47
Dallas (Dallas, TX) 35.90
Multnomah (Portland, OR) 33.77
Maricopa (Greater Phoenix) 24.40
Harris (Houston, TX) 22.09
Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA) 21.72
Source: Matrix Information and Directory Services
(MIDS), 1998.
* An “Internet host” is a computer through which one
accesses the Internet. Because multiple users may access
the Internet through a single host (e.s., at work or school)
the number of hosts does not necessarily correspond to the
total number of computers or the number of Internet users
in the region.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 38.
Daily Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT)
(urbanized areas)
1995 1996
30.0 29.8
25.6 25.7
24.5 24.5
22.7 22.2
21.7 21.7
21.7 21.6
20.8 21.6
20.8 21.5
21.2 21.0
Source: Federal Highway Administration, data published
October 1997.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 54.
DALLAS
HOUSTON
SEATTLE
SAN JOSE
SAN DIEGO
LOS ANGELES
PORTLAND
GREATER PHOENIX
DENVER
Population Density
(persons per square mile, urbanized areas)
1995 1996
5,430 5,490
4,332 4,449
3,477 3,522
2,883 2,889
2,406 2,458
2,290 2,308
2,134 2,220
1,944 1,988
1,919 1,964
Source: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Oct. 1997.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 51.
LOS ANGELES/LONG BEACH
SAN JOSE
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
DENVER
SEATTLE
GREATER PHOENIX
HOUSTON
DALLAS
Annual Per Capita Contributions to United Way
1996 1997
$30.62 $36.78
$16.72 $17.58
$15.78 $15.47
$13.70 $14.74
$12.28 $13.47
$11.42 $11.92
$8.27 $8.34
Source: Valley of the Sun United Way 1998.
Data for Houston were unavailable.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 64.
SEATTLE
DALLAS
DENVER
SAN JOSE
GREATER PHOENIX
PORTLAND
SAN DIEGO
Annual Per Capita Miles of Transit Service
(urbanized areas)
1996
32.9
22.6
22.3
15.1
14.3
13.5
9.5
Source: Federal Transit Administration Section 15 report
data, compiled and provided by Regional Public
Transportation Authority (RPTA), 1998.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 55.
SEATTLE
PORTLAND
DENVER
SAN DIEGO
DALLAS
SAN JOSE
GREATER PHOENIX
13
__
Education
26% of Greater Phoenix residents believe that education is
the most important factor in our regional quality of life.
1998 Education Indicators
Stanford Achievement Test Scores
Graduation Rates
Parents’ Perceptions of Public and Private School Quality
Incidents on School Grounds
Parents’ Perceptions of Public and Private School Safety
Ratings of Local Colleges and Universities
Perception of Local College and University Quality
EDUCATION
Families and Youth
Public Safety and Crime
Economy
Health/Health Care
Environment
Transportation and Mobility
Arts, Culture and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 26% 26%
category rank 1st 1st
’97
Survey
’98
Education Survey
Stanford Achievement Test Scores
(in Maricopa County public schools, Spring 1997
and Spring 1998)
Source: Arizona Department of Education, 1998.
14
__
What the indicator is:
After eight years of using the Iowa Test of Basic
Skills (ITBS), the Arizona Department of
Education began administering the Stanford
Achievement Test (Stanford 9) in 1997. Thus,
two years of standardized, norm-referenced data
are now available to compare scores in
Maricopa County to those of other students
around the nation. The scores presented in the
graphic are in percentile for Maricopa County,
by grade level, for the last two years.
A “norm-referenced” test means that each
student’s achievement can be compared to the
achievement of a representative national sample
of public school students of the same age and
grade level, at a particular point in time. Thus, a
bar that reaches the 40% mark in 1998 indicates
that 60% of students nationwide scored higher
than students in Greater Phoenix in 1998. A score
near the 50th percentile indicates performance
that is about average when compared with other
students of the same grade level around the nation
(the Stanford 9 was last “normed” in 1995).
What the data say:
Six of ten grade levels in Maricopa County saw
higher Stanford 9 reading scores in 1998.
Despite this improvement, four grade levels
(grades 3, 9, 10 and 11) still remain at or below
the national average.
In math, the scores for all ten grade levels rose.
All grade levels in Maricopa County are now
testing beyond the 50th percentile (national
norm) in math.
The language portion of the exam is still
problematic for Maricopa County students.
Despite better scores in nine of the ten grade
levels, seven grade levels still test below the
national norm.
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 GRADES
READING
U.S. (50%)
'97
'98
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 GRADES
MATH
U.S. (50%)
'97
'98
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 GRADES
LANGUAGE
U.S. (50%)
'97
'98
Graduation Rates in Maricopa County and Arizona
Source: Arizona Department of Education, latest data
released July, 1998.
Parents’ Perceptions of Public School Quality
(n=262)
Parents’ Perceptions of Private School Quality
(n=32)
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for Public
Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may not add
to 100% due to rounding.
15
__
What the indicator is:
According to the Arizona Department of
Education (ADE), “high school graduation rates
are useful indicators of the success of various
school improvement programs and reform
efforts in general.” (Graduation Rate Study for
the Class of 1994, ADE, 1996).
The data presented here are based on a study in
which enrollment is tracked over a four-year
period. The graduation rate is the proportion of
students who complete the requirements for a
high school diploma within a four-year period.
What the data say:
Ten years ago, the Arizona Department of
Education adopted the National Education Goal
of increasing high school graduation rates to
90% by the year 2000, with an interim goal of
85% by 1996.
The data show fairly slow and steady progress
in increasing graduation rates in both Maricopa
County and Arizona. In 1996, graduation rates
rose significantly. Despite the progress, however,
graduation rates are still short of the 85%
statewide goal for 1996.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
As in last year’s regionwide Quality of Life
Survey, parents of public school students in
Greater Phoenix rate local public school quality
high in 1998: 65% indicated either “excellent”
or “good.” Parents with children enrolled in
private schools report extremely high
satisfaction: 98% said their child’s private
school quality was either “excellent” or “good.”
Note: Because these questions were asked of a
sub-sample of the 1,024 residents surveyed, the
margin of error is greater than +/- 3.0%.
Maricopa County
Arizona
68% 69.3%
70.8% 71.1%
60%
70%
80%
1993 1994 1995 1996
72.6%
81.1%
68.9%
74.3%
Good 37%
Fair 23%
Excellent 28%
Poor 11%
Good 40% Excellent
58%
No Opinion 2%
EDUCATION
Somewhat safe
17%
Very safe
80%
No opinion 3%
Somewhat safe
44%
Unsafe 16% Very safe
33%
Very unsafe 4%
16
__
What the indicator is:
A number of highly publicized shootings on
school campuses in the U.S. and a handful of
studies regarding school violence have brought
the topic of school safety to prominence in
1998.
This indicator represents the number of
incidents occurring on public school grounds in
Maricopa County that result in the intervention
of law enforcement and charges being filed
against a student. The figures do not include
incidents involving persons coming from outside
of a school and committing a crime on campus.
What the data say:
While these figures illustrate the fact that many
potentially illegal incidents occur on school
campuses, caution should be exercised in
drawing conclusions about the apparent trend
here. Additional years are needed before the
seemingly large rise in the rate of incidents rate
can be confirmed. Although some more
incidents may be occurring on local campuses,
it is likely that better recordkeeping and more
accurate reporting are also having some
influence in altering these numbers.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Despite the figures indicating a rise in school
incidents, the majority of parents with children
enrolled in both public and private schools in
Greater Phoenix believe that their children are
in a safe environment at school. Seventy-seven
percent of public school parents report that they
believe their child is safe at school (vs. 83% in
the 1997 Quality of Life survey). In addition,
and virtually identical to last year, nearly 100%
of private school parents think their child is
“very” or “somewhat” safe at school.
Note: Because these questions were asked of a
sub-sample of the 1,024 residents surveyed, the
margin of error is greater than +/- 3.0%.
Students Against Whom Charges Were Filed for
Incidents Occurring on School Grounds
(rate per 1,000 students in Maricopa County public
schools, 1994-97)
Source: Figures for 1996-97 calculated by Morrison
Institute based on information from Arizona Department of
Education (ADE) Report Cards. Previous year figures
provided by ADE.
Note: Incidents occurring at schools with grades 7-9 were
tabulated with the elementary schools, not the high
schools.
Parents’ Perception of Public School Safety
(n=262)
Parents’ Perception of Private School Safety
(n=44)
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for Public
Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may not add
to 100% due to rounding.
High school
2.2 Elementary
1.4
3.9
5.9
1
2
3
4
5
6
1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997
4.7
11.4
7
8
9
10
11
12
17
__
EDUCATION
Ratings of Colleges and Universities
by U.S. News & World Report
(in Greater Phoenix, 1992 and 1996-98)
1998 - American Graduate School of
International Management ranked best
(#1) international business program
- ASU Graduate Schools:
- Architecture ranked 19th in U.S.
- Education ranked 27th in U.S.
- Public Affairs ranked 30th in U.S.
- Business ranked 31st in U.S.
- Law ranked 44th in U.S.
- ASU undergraduate education ranked
in tier three (117th -174th) among “best
national”universities
1997 - American Graduate School of
International Management ranked best
(#1) international business program
- ASU Graduate Schools:
- Architecture ranked “top 20”
- Education ranked “top 50”
- Business ranked 43rd in U.S.
- Law ranked 44th in U.S.
1996 - ASU undergraduate education ranked
in tier three (116th- 172nd) among 229
“best national” universities
- ASU undergraduate business program
ranked 24th in U.S.
1992 - Maricopa Community Colleges
highlighted in U.S. News’ America’s
Best Colleges issue.
Source: U.S. News & World Report, 1992 and 1996-98.
Perception of Local College and
University Quality
(n=211)
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998.
What the indicator is:
U.S. News & World Report has been ranking
American universities and colleges for the past
decade. Although the way the rankings are
calculated has been refined numerous times
and several statistical measures are used, the
rankings are not scientific. In 1998, they are
based on more than a dozen weighted criteria,
including faculty resources, student selectivity,
and alumni giving rate. “Academic reputation,”
derived from a survey of more than 1,400 four-year
schools, is the most heavily weighted
criteria, accounting for 25 percent of the final
score for all schools. Graduate school rankings
are calculated similarly.
What the data say:
ASU’s undergraduate education was ranked
between 117th and 174th (tier three) among the
“best national universities” although it received
an academic reputation score of 2.7 (out of 4.0),
higher than several schools in the top 50.
ASU’s graduate programs continue to rank high,
and the American Graduate School of
International Management took top honors
again as best international business program in
the nation.
Although community colleges are not ranked by
U.S. News & World Report, the magazine did
feature Maricopa Community Colleges in a
1992 issue.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Just under 90 percent of residents who are
enrolled in a local college or university (or who
have a household member enrolled) believe the
education being offered is either “excellent” or
“good.” Overall, the generally high regard
residents of Greater Phoenix hold for our local
colleges and universities changed little from
1997-1998.
Note: Because this question was asked of a sub-sample
of the 1,024 residents surveyed, the
margin of error is greater than +/- 3.0%.
Good 43%
Refused 1%
Fair 11%
Excellent
43%
Poor 2%
19
__
Families and Youth
21% of Greater Phoenix residents believe the status of
families and youth children is the most important factor in
our regional quality of life.
1998 Families and Youth Indicators
Median Home Sales Price and Home Affordability
Perception of Mortgage Payment Burden
Average Apartment Rent
Perception of Rent Payment Burden
Estimated Child and Total Poverty Rates
Perception of Child Poverty
Reported Cases of Child Abuse
Perception of Child Abuse
Petitions Filed for Domestic Violence Orders of Protection
Perception of Domestic and Spousal Violence
Special Focus: Child Care
Education
FAMILIES AND YOUTH
Public Safety and Crime
Economy
Health/Health Care
Environment
Transportation and Mobility
Arts, Culture and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 19% 21%
category rank 3rd 2nd
’97
Survey
’98
Families and Youth Survey
20
__
What the indicators are:
In addition to affecting the regional economy
profoundly, home ownership opportunities and
the affordability of housing affect the quality of
life of most individuals and families. The
median price trend for new and resale homes
depicted is for single-family homes only in
Maricopa County from 1993 to 1997.
The inter-regional comparison data are from the
National Association of Homebuilders’ Housing
Opportunity Index. The NAHB annually
measures the proportion of homes sold in a
specific housing market that a family earning
the median income in that market could afford
to purchase. The Index also takes property tax
and insurance rates into consideration in each
community ranked.
What the data say:
Continuing a steady trend, the median price of
both new and resale homes rose in Greater
Phoenix during 1997. The median resale home
price finished 8.2% higher in 1997 than in 1996,
while the cost of the median new home
increased 4.1%. Sales of both new and resale
homes in Greater Phoenix were strong in 1997,
fueled by low interest rates and population growth.
Among the western peer regions compared,
Greater Phoenix continues to be second most
affordable, according to the NAHB. Only
Denver ranked as a more affordable housing
market at the end of 1997. Portland, San Jose,
San Diego, Los Angeles and Seattle, were among
the 25 least affordable housing markets.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
The vast majority of the homeowners surveyed
in Greater Phoenix indicate that their mortgage
payment is easy or about right. Nevertheless,
about one out of ten residents reports struggling
to make the monthly payment.
Note: Because this question was asked of a sub-sample
of the 1,024 residents surveyed, the
margin of error is greater than +/- 3.0%.
Median Home Sales Price
(new and resale single family homes in Greater
Phoenix, 1993-97)
Source: Arizona Real Estate Center, L. William Seidman
Research Institute, College of Business, Arizona State
University, 1998.
Affordability of Homes
(out of 193 U.S. regions, 1996 and 1997 ranking)
1996 1997
91st 112th
110th 123rd
122nd 125th
147th 146th
n/a 172nd
166th 180th
174th 183rd
178th 189th
181st 191st
(Ranking of 1 = most affordable in U.S., 193= least
affordable)
Source: National Association of Homebuilders, 1998. Data
is for 4th quarter, 1997.
Valley Residents’ Level of Comfort in Making
Their Monthly Mortgage Payment
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for Public
Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may not add
to 100% due to rounding.
Resale
New
$60,000
$90,000
$120,000
$150,000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
$112,500
$124,475 $127,600
$130,750
$84,000 $87,225 $90,500
$97,000
$105,000
$136,130
Other 16% A struggle 9%
Refused 3%
Make it easily 35% About right 37%
SAN JOSE
DENVER
GREATER PHOENIX
HOUSTON
DALLAS
LOS ANGELES
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
SEATTLE
21
__
FAMILIES AND YOUTH
What the indicator is:
For individuals and families who don’t own
homes, quality of life as it relates to housing
means the monthly expense of rent.
The trend line indicates the average cost of an
apartment (regardless of the number of
bedrooms) in Maricopa County apartment
complexes with 50 or more units.
What the data say:
Consistent with the rising median cost of new
and resale homes, average monthly apartment
rent continues to rise steadily in Greater
Phoenix, according to RealData Inc. The rate
of increase in apartment rent, however, appears
to be slowing somewhat: after rising nearly 9%
between 1994 and 1995, the increase was only
5% in 1997.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Eighty-one percent of apartment renters in the
1998 Quality of Life Survey reported their rent
payment was either “about right” or that they
“make it easily.” Sixteen percent reported a rent
payment that is “a struggle.”
When looking at the affordability of rent from
the perspective of families versus individuals,
however, the struggle seems to be greater. As in
the 1997 survey, a higher percentage of those
with one or more children reported struggling
with the monthly rent.
Note: Because this question was asked of a sub-sample
of the 1,024 residents surveyed, the
margin of error is greater than +/- 3.0%.
Average Apartment Rent
(in apartment complexes with 50 or more units in
Maricopa County, 1994-97)
Source: RealData Inc., 1998.
Valley Residents’ Level of Comfort in Making
Their Monthly Rent Payment
(n=305 renters)
No children 1 or more children
A struggle 13% 21%
Make it easily 40% 34%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for Public
Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998.
$483
$526
$554
$400
$500
$600
1994 1995 1996 1997
$582
+8.9% +5.3% +5.0%
A struggle 16%
Refused 1%
About right 44%
Make it easily 37%
Other 2%
About right 45% 43%
22
__
What the indicator is:
Poverty can affect quality of life on both a
personal and regional level. On a personal
level, poverty for a child can mean inadequate
health care, even hunger. On a regional level,
high rates of child and total poverty can incur
large costs to society and government.
Because poverty data are gathered in the U.S.
Census only every ten years, estimates of child
poverty become less accurate as they extend
further from the base year (in this instance,
1990). The U.S. figures in the graphic are based
on the Current Population Survey, adjusted to
match the 1990 census. The Maricopa County
poverty rates are based on the relationship
between the poverty rate and the change in per
capita personal income. Note: Based on updated
data, some adjustments to the estimates in What
Matters 1997 are reflected here.
What the data say:
Both total and child poverty in Maricopa
County generally appear to be on the decline
since the 1993-94 period. Maricopa County
child poverty dropped below the national child
poverty rate in 1994, and remained below in
1995 and 1996. Strong economic
conditions in Arizona and the U.S. have helped
to reduce poverty.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
A small percentage of Greater Phoenix residents
are expressing additional concern about the
severity of child poverty in the region in 1998,
increasing the percentage in the category “a
severe problem” from 25% in 1997 to 29% in
1998. The percentage of respondents indicating
child poverty as only a “minor problem” or “not
a problem” changed little between the two
surveys, and stands at roughly 20%.
Estimated Child Poverty and Total Poverty Rates
(in Maricopa County and U.S., 1992-96)
Est. child poverty in Maricopa County
Est. child poverty U.S.
Est. total poverty in Maricopa County
Source: Center for Business Research, College of Business,
Arizona State University.
(child poverty relates to those younger than 18 years old)
Perception of Child Poverty in Greater Phoenix
1997 (n=1,012) 1998 (n=1,024)
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for Public
Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may not add
to 100% due to rounding.
10%
15%
20%
25%
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
21.0%
20.7%
15.9% 16.0%
21.4%
22.2% 20.7%
20.5%
14.9% 13.6%
18.9%
19.5%
13.5%
18.6%
19.2%
50
40
30
20
10
A Severe
Problem
A
Problem
Minor
Problem
Not a
Problem
Don’t
Know
25%
29%
50%
46%
15% 15%
5% 4% 5% 6%
Reported Cases of Child Abuse or Neglect
(calls to the child abuse hotline in Maricopa County
meeting the criteria for a report of child maltreatment
valid for investigation/assessment, fiscal years1996-98)
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security,
Department of Children, Youth and the Family, Child
Protective Services, 1999. Rate per 1,000 calculated by
Morrison Institute for Public Policy, based on county
population estimates of persons below age 18.
.
Perception of Child Abuse in Greater Phoenix
1997 1998
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
23
__
FAMILIES AND YOUTH
What the indicator is:
In cases of child abuse, poor personal quality of life
is fairly obvious for the child being abused and
probably also for the adult who is perpetrating the
maltreatment. But a region’s quality of life can also
be affected by this crime too, as it is society that often
pays a variety of costs in the aftermath of abuse.
Determining the precise amount of abuse and
maltreatment that occurs in a community is difficult
to measure because it is often a “hidden” crime.
Thus, surrogate measures, such as reported cases of
child maltreatment to Child Protective Services,
must be used as general — although potentially
inaccurate — barometers of the level and extent of
child abuse in the region. The figures are for reports
of child abuse phoned in to CPS meeting a certain
criteria, whether investigated or not, that meet the
legal criterion of being an allegation of abuse or
neglect of a child under 18 years of age at the hands
of a parent, guardian, or caretaker.
What the data say:
This indicator shows a rise in both rate per 1,000
children and total reported cases between 1996
and 1997, before a leveling-off in 1998. Because
of the region’s continued strong in-migration of
population, the relatively small drop in reported
cases caused a more notable decline in rate of
abuse per 1,000 children. Overall, despite the
inherent under-reporting problem, it is clear
that at least three children in 100 are abused.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Perhaps reflecting the increased media attention
on the issue, a slightly larger percentage of
Greater Phoenix residents believe in 1998 that
child abuse is a “severe” problem in the region,
and fewer believe it is only a “minor” problem.
Eighty-five percent of area residents now rate
child abuse as either “a problem” or a “severe
problem,” compared with about 80% in 1997.
50
40
30
20
10
A Severe
Problem
A
Problem
Minor
Problem
Not a
Problem
Don’t
Know
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1996 1997 1998
18,802
21,265 21,189
26.5 29.1 27.6
Rate
per 1,000
children
33%
44%
47%
41%
13%
10%
3% 1%
4% 4%
24
__
What the indicator is:
Like child abuse, it is assumed that many
domestic violence incidents go unreported. One
way to assess the general trend in domestic
violence, however, is to examine the number of
domestic violence orders of protection filed in
the county’s limited jurisdiction (municipal
and justice) courts. The graph to the left
depicts the number of petitions filed for orders
of protection during the last several years.
What the data say:
Petitions for orders of protection in Maricopa
County grew substantially in both 1994 and
1995 before declining in 1996. Despite the
decline in 1996, however, the overall rate of
increase surpassed the overall rate of population
growth in the region during this three year
period, indicating an absolute rise in the rate of
petitions filed.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
As with child abuse, a slightly larger percentage
of Greater Phoenix residents believe in 1998
that domestic and spousal violence is either a
“problem” or a “severe problem” in the region.
Seventy-nine percent reported one of those two
answers in 1998, while about 75% indicated
similarly in 1997. Those who indicated
domestic and spousal violence as a “severe
problem” increased by 8% in 1998.
Petitions Filed for Domestic Violence
Orders of Protection
(in Maricopa County, 1993-96)
Source: Arizona Supreme Court. As of August 1998, the
1996 data is the most current figure.
Note: Data are for limited jurisdiction courts only. Data is
for the fiscal year indicated.
Perception of Domestic and Spousal Violence
in Greater Phoenix
1997 1998
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
9,000
12,000
15,000
1993 1994 1995 1996
10,761
12,448
9,281 10,916
50
40
30
20
10
A Severe
Problem
A
Problem
Minor
Problem
Not a
Problem
Don’t
Know
25%
33%
50%
46%
15%
14%
4% 3%
5% 4%
25
__
FAMILIES AND YOUTH
What the indicator is:
In 1998, the Children’s Defense Fund, in
coordination with the National Association of
Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies,
conducted a comprehensive survey of child care
in all 50 states. The figures presented to the left
reflect the CDF findings for Greater Phoenix
and three western peer regions. Because the
costs listed are for only one child in day care,
parents with several children can spend
significantly more than the amount listed.
What the data say:
Greater Phoenix’s comparative ranking
regarding the cost of child care closely mirrors
the cost of living data found earlier in this
report. As with cost of living, Greater Phoenix
finishes quite affordable among this small group
of peers.
Nevertheless, despite this data and the fact that
Arizona recently lowered the income eligibility
for low-income families to receive child care
assistance, the state still ranks among the
bottom 20 in making low-income families
eligible for assistance, according to the Children’s
Defense Fund. In addition, cost data do not
reflect an important issue in issue in child care:
quality.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Only those residents of Greater Phoenix who
reported they regularly placed a child in day
care were asked their opinion of the expense of
child care. Most of the 77 people who responded
indicated that child care in the region is either
“affordable” (43%) or only “moderately
expensive” (38%). Four percent of the 77 Phoenix
residents indicated child care is “inexpensive;” 6%
reported it to be “very expensive.”
Note: Because this question was asked of a sub-sample
of the 1,024 residents surveyed, the
margin of error regarding these results could be
substantially greater than +/- 3.0%.
SPECIAL FOCUS: CHILD CARE
Average Annual Cost of Child Care
(in child care centers in selected western regions,
1998)
12 month-old
Seattle $8,840
Denver $5,096
Dallas $4,838
Greater Phoenix $4,738
4 year-old
Seattle $6,136
Denver $4,576
Greater Phoenix $4,076
Dallas $3,789
Source: Children’s Defense Fund, Child Care Challenges,
May 1998. Data for San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles,
Portland, and Houston not available.
27
__
Public Safety and Crime
18% of Greater Phoenix residents believe the level of public
safety and crime is the most important factor in our regional
quality of life.
1998 Public Safety and Crime Indicators
Violent Crime Rate
Perception of Violent Crime
Property Crime Rate
Perception of Property Crime
Special Focus: Personal Safety
Juvenile Arrest Rates for Violent, Property and Drug Offenses
Perception of Gangs
Average Law Enforcement Response Time
Perception of Law Enforcement Quality
Education
Families and Youth
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CRIME
Economy
Health/Health Care
Environment
Transportation and Mobility
Arts, Culture and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 20% 18%
category rank 2nd 3rd
’97
Survey
’98
Public Safety and Crime Survey
28
__
What the indicator is:
Each October, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) releases Crime in the United
States, a detailing of the nation’s violent and
property crime statistics for the year prior.
The agency suggests that the unique economic,
demographic, and geographic circumstances of
each region should be considered when
examining the data comparatively. The violent
crimes counted in determining the violent crime
rate include: murder and non-negligent
manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault. Data listed are for
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).
What the data say:
As with the 1995 violent crime data, Greater
Phoenix finishes closer to the bottom than the
top of this list of western peer regions.
In addition, the 668 violent crimes per 100,000
residents was the third consecutive year of
declines for the region, as illustrated by the
trend graphic. Although not yet official,
preliminary 1997 data released in spring 1998
indicate that Greater Phoenix will probably
record a fourth consecutive year of decline.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Despite the recent declines in FBI data for the
region, 85% of residents of Greater Phoenix
believe violent crime in the region is either a
“severe problem” or at least “a problem.”
On an intra-regional basis comparing
responses from various parts of the Greater
Phoenix region not much difference is
revealed regarding the perceived level of violent
crime.
Violent Crime Rate
(violent crimes per 100,000 residents in selected
western metropolitan areas, 1995 and 1996)
1995 1996
1,423 1,278
856 859
819 784
727 727
795 710
765 668
615 562
513 460
(Data for Seattle not available)
Violent Crime Trend in Greater Phoenix
(crimes per 100,000 residents)
Source: Crime in the United States, U.S. FBI, 1996 data
published in October 1997.
Perception of Violent Crime
in Greater Phoenix
Phx NW NE SE SW
Severe problem 43% 42% 32% 40% 46%
Minor problem 10% 9% 11% 13% 11%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
DENVER
LOS ANGELES
HOUSTON
DALLAS
PORTLAND
GREATER PHOENIX
SAN JOSE
SAN DIEGO
A problem 43% 46% 49% 46% 40%
Not a problem 4% 1% 6% 1% 1%
750 668
807
768
765
600
800
1000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Problem 45%
Don't know 1%
Minor problem 11%
Severe problem 40%
Not a problem 3%
29
__
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CRIME
What the indicator is:
Also from the FBI’s latest report, 1996 Crime in
the United States, the property crime rate
includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft,
motor vehicle theft, and arson. The data listed
are for metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).
What the data say:
As with the 1995 data, Greater Phoenix finds
itself atop this list of western peer regions for
property crimes per 100,000 residents. Because
of a significant automobile theft problem, the
rate of property crime in this region is more than
double that of San Jose, and even higher than
that of Los Angeles.
Despite the poor comparative ranking, Greater
Phoenix saw a considerable reduction in the
property crime rate between 1995 and 1996.
However, because of several successive years of
increase in the mid-1990s, the region’s 1996
property crime rate still remains above the rate
recorded in 1992.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Although property crime in the region has seen
a fairly level to slightly upward trend in
contrast to the falling violent crime trend
Greater Phoenix residents believe the region’s
violent crime problem is more severe. Thirty-one
percent of those surveyed reported property
crime in Greater Phoenix to be “severe,” while
roughly 40% indicated a perception that violent
crime is “severe.”
Property Crime Rate
(property crimes per 100,000 residents in selected
western metropolitan areas, 1995 and 1996)
1995 1996
8,044 7,062
5,752 5,565
5,078 4,955
4,778 4,902
6,011 4,173
4,719 4,164
4,236 3,913
3,630 3,458
(Data for Seattle not available.)
Property Crime Rate Trend in Greater Phoenix
(crimes per 100,000 residents)
Source: Crime in the United States, U.S. FBI, 1996 data
published in October 1997.
Perception of Property Crime
in Greater Phoenix
Phx NW NE SE SW
Severe problem 35% 38% 25% 26% 33%
Minor problem 11% 11% 21% 13% 12%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
SAN JOSE
GREATER PHOENIX
DALLAS
DENVER
HOUSTON
LOS ANGELES
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
A problem 46% 48% 47% 58% 52%
Not a problem 7% 2% 4% 2% 2%
7,062
6,715 6,981 7,522
8,044
6,000
8,000
10,000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Severe Problem 31%
A Problem 50%
Minor Problem 14%
Don't know 1%
SPECIAL FOCUS:
PERSONAL SAFETY
“How safe do you feel out alone at night
walking in your neighborhood?”
1997 1998
Phx NW NE SE SW
Very safe 34% 41% 52% 43% 25%
Somewhat unsafe 15% 12% 12% 12% 24%
Residents of Greater Phoenix Indicating
Personal, Family or Neighborhood Crime
’97 ’98
Stolen property or money 41% 43%
Phys. assault or mugging 9% 12%
...For any of the four crimes above
1997 1998
No Yes No Yes
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
30
__
50
40
30
20
10
Very Safe Somewhat
Safe
Somewhat
Unsafe
Very
Unsafe
Refused
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
The ability to feel safe walking alone in your
neighborhood at night, and/or being personally
touched by crime can profoundly impact how
one feels about personal quality of life. In both
1997 and 1998, the majority of Greater Phoenix
residents reported feeling safe walking in their
neighborhood; however, many have been
personally affected by crime in some way.
In 1997, 75% of those surveyed indicated they
feel either “very safe” or “somewhat safe”
walking alone in their neighborhood. In 1998,
those combined numbers rose slightly, to 79%,
with minor increases in both categories.
The disparity between residents living in
different regions of Greater Phoenix on this
issue, however, is notable. While persons living
in the northeast, northwest, and southeast
portions of Greater Phoenix reported in the mid-
80 percentile for combined responses of “very
safe” or “somewhat safe,” substantially fewer of
those living in the southwest region (59%)
reported similar feelings of personal safety.
Residents of Greater Phoenix were also asked
about any personal experience with having
money or property stolen, auto theft, physical
assault, or home burglary. In numbers nearly
identical to 1997, 43% said either they
personally, a family member, or a person in
their neighborhood had been the victim of stolen
property or money. One in four had been
victimized or knew someone who had been
victimized by auto theft, and about three out of
ten respondents had been the victim or knew a
victim of home burglary.
As in 1997, more than half of Greater Phoenix
residents in the survey reported that either they,
a member of their family, or someone in their
neighborhood had been the victim of one of the
four crimes during the previous year.
Auto theft 20% 23%
Home burglary 28% 29%
48% 52%
45%
55%
Somewhat safe 39% 43% 34% 40% 34%
Very unsafe 11% 2% 2% 5% 16%
1% 1%
8%
6%
16%
14%
36%
39% 40% 39%
Juvenile Arrest Rates for Violent, Property
and Drug Offenses
(arrests per 100,000 juveniles in Maricopa County,
1992-96)
Source: Raw data from Arizona Department of Public
Safety, published 1998. Rates calculated by Morrison
Institute.
Perception of Gangs as a Problem in
Greater Phoenix
1997 1998
Phx NW NE SE SW
Severe problem 50% 48% 29% 40% 50%
Minor problem 11% 6% 14% 13% 12%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
31
__
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CRIME
50
40
30
20
10
Severe
Problem
A
Problem
Minor
Problem
Not a
Problem
Don’t
Know
What the indicator is:
Recent incidents of school violence and
shootings in the U.S. have highlighted
increasing concerns about the violent tendencies
of the generation currently approaching
adulthood. This indicator, which measures the
number of juvenile arrests per 100,000 juveniles
in Greater Phoenix, provides insight into the
general trend of juvenile crime in this region.
Part I violent offenses include criminal
homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated
assault. Part I property crimes are burglary,
larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Part II drug offenses include the sale,
manufacture, or possession of illegal drugs.
What the data say:
Although the juvenile arrest rate for part I
violent offenses declined for the third
consecutive year in 1996, both part I property
and part II drug arrests rose. The rate of
juvenile arrests for illegal drugs has more than
doubled in Maricopa County since 1992.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Although not all juvenile crime is committed by
gangs, the perception of the gang problem
provides insight into how Greater Phoenix
residents view the general state of the juvenile
crime problem.
As in 1997, a large majority (83%) believe that
Greater Phoenix has a “problem” or a “severe
problem” with gangs; only about 14% indicate
the problem to be minor or non existent.
On an intra-regional basis, most persons view
the gang problem similarly, regardless of where
they live. A slight exception, however, is the
northeast portion of Greater Phoenix, where
more residents believe that gangs are either not
a problem, or are only a minor problem.
Part II drug
161.8
225.9
307.1
320.7
204.0 198.0
235.8
235.1
Part I violent
150
200
250
300
350
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
349.1
183.7
Part I property
1,588.9 1,499.6
1,353.5
1,320.3
1,000
1,500
2,000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1,344.5
A problem 34% 38% 48% 44% 35%
Not a problem 3% 5% 6% 1% 1%
1% 3% 3% 3%
10% 11%
40% 40%
46%
43%
50
40
30
20
10
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t
Know
32
__
What the indicator is:
The speed and efficiency of police response
impacts many citizens’ sense of security, and
thus, their quality of life. The data provided for
this indicator came from five of Greater
Phoenix’s largest police departments which
together provide public safety assistance to
more than 75% of the area’s population.
Data listed are for the highest priority calls.
Response time is measured from the time the
call is received to the arrival of the first unit or
officer on the scene.
What the data say:
The average response time for emergency police
calls in Greater Phoenix was faster for the
second straight year in 1997. Although the
figure has remained fairly constant through the
period, response time dropped below five
minutes for the first time since 1993.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
As in the 1997 survey, the majority of Greater
Phoenix residents in 1998 (55%) believe that
law enforcement quality is “good.” One-third of
respondents, however, believe local police
quality is only “fair” or “poor.”
When comparing responses on the quality of
police question among the various sub-regions
of the Greater Phoenix area, those in the
southwestern portion show the lowest approval:
40% reported “fair” or “poor.”
4.59
5.21
5.45
5.13
4
5
6
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
4.77
Average Law Enforcement Response Time
(response time in minutes for highest-priority calls
among five municipal police departments in Greater
Phoenix, 1993-97)
Source: information from Phoenix, Peoria, Glendale, Mesa
and Chandler police departments, compiled by Morrison
Institute, 1998.
Perception of Law Enforcement Quality in
Greater Phoenix
1997 1998
Phx NW NE SE SW
Excellent 9% 41% 52% 43% 25%
Fair 28% 27% 24% 23% 26%
Don’t know 3% 2% 2% 2% 0%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
Good 56% 43% 34% 40% 34%
Poor 4% 6% 6% 7% 14%
12%
56%
23%
6% 3% 2%
7%
26%
55%
10%
33
__
Economy
9% of Greater Phoenix residents believe the state of the
region’s economy is the most important factor in our quality
of life.
1998 Economy Indicators
Cost of Living
Perception of Change in Cost of Living
Per Capita Personal Income
Perception of Change in Income
Unemployment Rate
Perception of Job Security
Special Focus: Job Satisfaction
Special Focus: Internet Connectivity
Education
Families and Youth
Public Safety and Crime
ECONOMY
Health/Health Care
Environment
Transportation and Mobility
Arts, Culture and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 8% 9%
category rank 5th 4th
’97
Survey
’98
Economy Survey
34
__
What the indicator is:
Like the expense of a monthly mortgage or rent
payment, the overall cost of living in a region
can profoundly affect the personal quality of life
of individuals and families. A high cost of living
often means additional income is needed to meet
basic needs.
For the past 30 years, the ACCRA Cost of
Living Index has been comparing the costs of
goods and services in metropolitan and non-metropolitan
areas in the United States. Items
counted in the ACCRA Index include: groceries,
housing, utilities, transportation, health care,
and miscellaneous goods and services. The
average for all locations in the Index equals
100; thus any location with a score above 100
can be considered higher than average cost of
living, and below 100 has a lower cost of living
than the U.S. as a whole.
What the data say:
Greater Phoenix has the second-lowest cost of
living among this group of five western peer
regions in the fourth quarter, 1997.
Nevertheless, because it is over 100, the cost of
living in Greater Phoenix is slightly higher than
average in the U.S.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
As in 1997, two-thirds of residents (68%)
perceived only a little or moderate increase in
the region’s cost of living during the past year.
Nearly 20% reported seeing no increase
whatsoever in the area’s cost of living.
Cost of Living
(in selected western regions, 4th quarter 1997)
1997
117.6
107.3
105.9
103.6
100.0
98.2
Cost of Living Trend in Greater Phoenix
Source: American Chambers of Commerce Researchers
Association (ACCRA). A score of 100 is the average of all
places in the national survey. Data for San Diego, Seattle,
San Jose and Houston are not available.
Perception of Change in Greater Phoenix’s Cost
of Living During the Past Year
1997 1998
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
LOS ANGELES/LONG BEACH
PORTLAND
DENVER
GREATER PHOENIX
DALLAS
U.S. AVERAGE
50
40
30
20
10
Significant
Increase
Moderate
Increase
A Little
Increase
No
Increase
Don’t
Know
101.2
90
95
100
105
110
115
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
103.6
101.2 101.4 102.5
103.6
17%
35%
31% 33%
17% 18%
0% 1%
35%
13%
Per Capita Personal Income
1996 Rank*
$35,395 4
$31,372 13
$29,234 24
$28,513 29
$27,195 39
$26,228 53
$24,945 75
$24,282 91
$23,377 121
* out of 320 U.S. metropolitan statistical areas
ranked.
Per Capita Personal Income in Greater Phoenix
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, 1998.
Residents’ Perception of Change in Own
Household Income During the Past Year
1997 1998
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
35
__
ECONOMY
What the indicator is:
Working in combination with the region’s cost
of living influences, the level of income an
individual or family enjoys often determines
whether they meet basic needs, or live in greater
luxury.
Per capita personal income (PCPI) is calculated
by dividing the annual total income of residents
in the region by the number of residents.
Figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA).
What the data say:
Greater Phoenix continues to rank very low on
per capita personal income, both among its
western counterparts and in the U.S. as a whole.
The 1996 per capita figure of $23,377, which
represented a 5.4% increase over 1995, still lags
behind the national metropolitan average by more
than $2,000.
Reasons frequently cited for this region’s
relatively poor PCPI are a low employment-to-population
ratio (i.e., fewer people work), and a
higher proportion of employment in below-average
wage industries. The so-called
“sunshine factor”, the theory that people are
willing to work and live here for less money
because of the favorable weather, is also often
cited as a factor.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Consistent with the rise in PCPI during recent
years, a slightly higher proportion of Greater
Phoenix residents reported “more income” in
1998 than in 1997. Almost half of those
responding in 1998 said they brought in more
income last year, while fewer than one in ten
said their household income went down.
50
40
30
20
10
More Income Less Income Same Income Refused
SAN JOSE
SEATTLE
DENVER
DALLAS
HOUSTON
PORTLAND
LA-LONG BEACH
SAN DIEGO
GREATER PHOENIX
$19,103
$19,914
$20,999
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
$22,166
$23,377
42%
12%
45%
1%
47%
9%
42%
2%
Unemployment Rate in Selected Western Regions
1996 1997
3.8% 2.8%
3.7% 3.0%
5.0% 3.3%
4.0% 3.7%
5.3% 4.2%
4.5% 4.3%
5.2% 5.0%
8.2% 6.8%
(Data for San Jose, Ca. were not available)
Unemployment Rate Trend in Greater Phoenix
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1997.
Residents’ Perceptions of Possibility of Losing
Their Job or Being Laid Off in the Coming Year
(n=660 employed persons in 1998, 676 in 1997)
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
36
__
What the indicator is:
The general economic health of a region is often
reflected in unemployment figures if the
economy is strong, demand for goods and
services puts more people to work, and
unemployment declines.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes
quarterly unemployment data for the U.S. and
major metropolitan areas. The figures reported
are annual unemployment rate data.
What the data say:
In 1997, only the Denver metropolitan region
enjoyed a lower unemployment rate than
Greater Phoenix among this list of eight western
peer regions. In addition, the Phoenix metro
area experienced a drop of seven-tenths of a
percent in the unemployment rate during 1997.
Unemployment in the region has been below
5% in the last four consecutive years.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Despite the strength of the regional employment
picture and recent unemployment rate trend,
slightly fewer residents of Greater Phoenix
indicated a strong sense of job security in the
1998 Morrison Institute/Arizona Republic
Quality of Life Survey.
Although the majority still believe the
likelihood of losing their job in the coming year
is slim, those indicating it was absolutely “not
likely” to occur dropped from 79% to 68%.
Note: Because this question was asked to only a
sub-sample of the 1,024 residents in the survey,
the margin of error is somewhat greater than
+/- 3.0%.
DENVER
GREATER PHOENIX
SEATTLE
DALLAS
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
HOUSTON
LOS ANGELES/LONG BEACH
5.0% 4.7%
3.5% 3.7%
3.0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
80
60
40
20
Very Likely Somewhat
Likely
Somewhat
Not
Not Likely Don’t
Know
1997 1998
4% 5% 9%
79%
3% 3%
68%
16%
6% 7%
37
__
ECONOMY
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Nearly identical job satisfaction responses were
indicated by employed Greater Phoenix
residents in both the 1997 and 1998 Quality of
Life Surveys. Combined, more than 90%
expressed satisfaction with their work at either
the “somewhat” or “very” satisfied level.
When considering responses by self-reported
income level, however, some disparity is
revealed. Forty-two percent of those who
indicated they earned less than $30,000 per year
were “very satisfied” with their job, while 65%
of those earning $75,000 or more responded
similarly. Only about 1% of those in the highest
income bracket said they were “very
dissatisfied” in their job.
Spending more time at work apparently has
little affect on how individuals feel about their
job satisfaction: while more than a third
reported spending more time at work last year,
fewer than 10% overall reported being
dissatisfied with their job.
Income, however, does appear to affect the
amount of time spent at work: while nearly half
(46%) of those in the highest income category
reported spending “more time” on the job during
the previous year, only a third (33%) of those in
the lowest income category said the same.
SPECIAL FOCUS: JOB SATISFACTION
Job Satisfaction Among Residents
of Greater Phoenix
(n=660 employed persons in 1998, 676 in 1997)
Income (thousands) <$30 $30-49 $50-74 >$75
Very Satisfied 42% 63% 59% 65%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 7% 7% 4% 8%
Don’t Know 4% 0% 0% 0%
Residents’ Perception of Amount of Time
Spent at Work During the Past Year
(n=660 employed persons in 1998, 676 in 1997)
Income (thousands) <$30 $30-49 $50-74 >$75
More Time 33% 36% 30% 46%
About The same 56% 54% 49% 48%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
Less Time 11% 10% 21% 6%
60
50
40
30
20
10
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
1997 1998
60
40
20
More
Time
Less
Time
About The
Same
1997 1998
58%
33%
13%
59%
35%
13%
52%
31%
8%
6% 3% 3%
31%
60%
Somewhat Satisfied 43% 27% 32% 26%
Very Dissatisfied 4% 2% 4% 1%
38
__
What the indicator is:
An “Internet host” is a computer system through
which a user can access the Internet. However,
because multiple computers may access the
internet through a single host (such as at a work
location or university), the number of hosts does
not correspond to the number of users or to the
number of computers.
Thus, although it does not describe total Internet
usage, this indicator does enable a uniform and
broad comparison of the level of Internet use and
connectivity in various regions.
This indicator is included as a Special Focus in
this year’s What Matters because it describes
what many believe to be an important learning
and commerce tool of the future.
What the data say:
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Santa Clara County
area of Northern California (Silicon Valley)
leads this group of U.S. western counties in
Internet connectivity with nearly 400 hosts per
1,000 population in 1997.
Although Greater Phoenix has tried to adopt the
“Silicon Desert” moniker because of the high-tech
expansion and location of a number of
important companies to the region, it severely
lags in terms of Internet connectivity. At just
over 24 Internet hosts per 1,000 people, Greater
Phoenix ranks third from the bottom among this
list of western peers, and is far behind Seattle,
San Diego, Denver, and San Jose.
According to the source of the data (MIDS),
however, our region did experience an
estimated 80%-100% growth rate in Internet
hosts between January 1996 and January 1997.
SPECIAL FOCUS:
INTERNET CONNECTIVITY
Internet Hosts Per Capita
(internet hosts per 1,000 population in selected
western counties, 1997)
County (major city) 1997
Santa Clara (San Jose, CA) 398.60
Denver (Denver, CO) 85.27
San Diego (San Diego, CA) 61.60
King (Seattle, WA) 46.47
Dallas (Dallas, TX) 35.90
Multnomah (Portland, OR) 33.77
Maricopa (Greater Phoenix) 24.40
Harris (Houston, TX) 22.09
Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA) 21.72
Source: Matrix Information and Directory Services
(MIDS), Matrix Maps Quarterly 402. For further
information about this data, contact mids@mids.org.
Note: the counties listed here do not correspond directly to
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) for the major city
listed in parentheses.
39
__
Health/Health Care
8% of Greater Phoenix residents believe that health and
health care is the most important factor in our quality of life.
1998 Health/Health Care Indicators:
Persons Reporting No Health Insurance
Selected Causes of Death
Current Accreditation Status of Hospitals
Perception of Hospital Quality
Current Accreditation Status of Healthcare Plans
Perception of Healthcare Quality
Education
Families and Youth
Public Safety and Crime
Economy
HEALTH/HEALTH CARE
Environment
Transportation and Mobility
Arts, Culture, and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 9% 8%
category rank 4th 5th
’97
Survey
’98
Health and Health Care Survey
Residents of Greater Phoenix
Reporting No Health Insurance
(n=1,024)
Children/No Child Insured Uninsured Don’t Know
Refused
No Children 88% 12% 0%
Age Insured Uninsured Don’t Know
Refused
18-34 77% 22% 1%
55+ 95% 4% 1%
Income Insured Uninsured Don’t Know
Refused
<$30,000 74% 24% 2%
$50-74,999 90% 10% 0%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
40
__
What the indicator is:
Health insurance enables families and
individuals to obtain prompt treatment for
illness and injury. A lack of access to health
care is often linked to a variety of problems
including premature and underweight babies,
which can, in turn, cause lifelong health
problems for the child.
What the data say:
In 1989 and 1995, Arizona’s Flinn Foundation
commissioned statewide surveys of residents to
identify the percentage with and without any
type of health insurance. The most recent Flynn
survey in 1995 showed approximately 15% of
state residents lacking health insurance.
In 1997 and 1998, the Morrison Institute/
Arizona Republic Quality of Life surveys have
also sought health insurance coverage
information for residents of Greater Phoenix.
Although this metropolitan region enjoys more
prosperity than the state as a whole, the
percentage of residents without any type of
health insurance is virtually identical to the state
percentage. Roughly 14% of Greater Phoenix
residents report no health insurance.
When considering the question of health
insurance coverage among those with and
without children in Greater Phoenix, a slight gap
is revealed: those with children more frequently
report not being insured.
Age and income also appear to be important
factors in whether or not one has health
insurance. Those in the lowest age and income
brackets report more frequently that they lack
any type of health insurance.
90
60
30
Insured Uninsured Don’t
Know/Refused
1997 1998
1 Or More 82% 18% 1%
35-54 87% 12% 1%
$30,000 84% 16% 0%
>$75,000 95% 5% 0%
87%
13%
0% 1%
14%
85%
41
__
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
What the indicators are:
Because they are broad indicators and fairly
common causes of death, the rates of death from
suicide, motor vehicle crash, heart disease, and
cancer can be used to gauge trends in the overall
health of the region’s citizens. Of course, each
of these indicators can be affected by unique
demographics and other regional characteristics
(i.e., an older population, higher speed limits,
environmental factors, etc.).
What the data say:
After four years of comparatively high suicide
rate data for the region, 1996 recorded a sizable
rate decrease. Despite this one-year downturn,
Greater Phoenix still far outpaces the rest of the
nation in the per capita rate at which people kill
themselves.
With regard to death from motor vehicle crash,
Greater Phoenix again saw substantial
improvement between 1995 and 1996, to a rate
which is now lower than that for the nation as a
whole. It remains to be seen, however, what
effect if any the recent increase in Arizona
highway speed limits will have on this rate in
future years.
Greater Phoenix experienced a third consecutive
year of decrease in the heart disease death rate,
an indicator in which Maricopa County stands
well below the U.S. average.
In addition, a second consecutive year of decline
in the regional death rate by cancer (“malignant
neoplasms”) was recorded in 1995-96. Again,
Greater Phoenix is lower than the national norm
for this indicator.
Selected Causes of Death
(rates per 100,000 residents in Maricopa County and
the U.S., 1992-1996)
Suicide
Motor Vehicle Crash
Heart Disease
Cancer
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services and
Arizona Department of Transportation, 1997.
U.S.
Maricopa
County
10
15
20
1993 1994 1995 1996
20
16 16
19
14
14.6
15.9
U.S.
Maricopa
County
200
250
300
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
282.5
230
285.8
243.2 236.1
280.3 281.2
230.7
217.2
278.9
U.S.
Maricopa
County
150
200
250
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
204.3
184.7 187.2
206 206.6
192.7
182.7
204.7
175.6
204.8
U.S.
Maricopa
County
10
15
20
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
14.6
11.7
17.3
11.6
17.3
11.7
18
11.8
15.3
11.5
42
__
What the indicator is:
For two consecutive years, the residents of
Greater Phoenix have indicated through the
survey conducted for this project that the quality
of the region’s health care facilities are
important to the region’s overall quality of life.
The Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Health Care Organizations provides data that
enable citizens to gauge the quality of these
institutions. The Joint Commission evaluates
the nation’s hospitals through an intensive
process in which a team of surveyors spends as
many as five days in a hospital, evaluating the
performance of the key functions that support
patient care. The survey team examines
performance documentation, interviews
organization leaders, visits patient care settings,
and discusses specific functions with hospital
staff. Hospital accreditation is re-evaluated by
the Joint Commission every three years.
What the data say:
How good are Greater Phoenix’s hospitals? All
38 of the region’s major hospitals have
completed the Joint Commission’s accreditation
process, with roughly one-quarter (9 of the 38)
receiving the highest possible rating:
Accreditation with Commendation, an honor
bestowed upon only 10% of all hospitals
nationwide. Although 17 local hospitals are
Accredited with Type 1 Recommendation, this
type of accreditation is routine, and requires
resolution of the recommendation(s) within a
given time period. No Greater Phoenix area
hospitals have been given “conditional
accreditation” or been denied accreditation by
the Joint Commission.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
New to the Quality of Life Survey in 1998, the
majority of residents in Greater Phoenix believe
that our region’s hospitals are good (56%).
Roughly equal numbers indicated that our
hospitals are either “excellent” (17%) or “fair”
(18%), while only 3% of residents said our local
hospitals are of “poor” quality.
Current Accreditation Status of Hospitals
(in Greater Phoenix, 1998)
Accredited with Commendation 9
Accredited 12
Accredited with Recommendation 17
for Improvement
Conditional Accreditation 0
Not Accredited 0
Source: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations, 1998. For detailed information on which
hospitals are included here, visit www.jacho.org
Residents’ Perception of Hospital Quality
in Greater Phoenix
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
Good 56%
Excellent 17%
Poor 3%
Don't know 6%
Fair 18%
43
__
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
What the indicator is:
Like the Joint Commission, the National
Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA)
performs quality surveys of health care plans
around the nation. The NCQA provides a three-year
accreditation to those plans/HMOs that
have met or exceeded quality standards.
Because many of Arizona’s healthcare plans
operate statewide and not just in Greater
Phoenix, the NCQA data presented here are for
all accredited health care plans operating in the
State of Arizona.
What the data say:
Seven out of 11 health care plans in Arizona
are currently in full accreditation status with the
NCQA. The remaining four plans have a one-year
accreditation, a common rating given to
those health care plans that have well-established
quality improvement programs and which have
met most of the standards. With one-year
accredited plans, NCQA provides a list of
recommendations and re-evaluates the plan 12
months later to identify progress toward full
accreditation. Currently, one Arizona
health care plan is scheduled for review. For
detailed information on which specific plans are
included in this list, visit www.ncqa.org.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
In a new question to the Quality of Life Survey in
1998, residents were asked their opinion of the
quality of the healthcare they receive in Greater
Phoenix. Forty-four percent indicated a
generally favorable or “good” opinion, while
more than one-quarter (28%) said they thought
the healthcare they receive is “excellent.”
Despite the high overall ratings given by
residents to Greater Phoenix’ hospitals and
healthcare plans, a majority expressed a feeling
of powerlessness when asked about who they
believe has the most say in the healthcare they
receive. Almost half of all respondents (48%)
indicated an insurance plan or company has the
most say in decisions regarding their care, while
only one-third (33%) said they believe that they
— the patient — have the greatest say.
Current Accreditation Status
of Health Care Plans
(in Arizona, 1998)
Full accreditation 7
One-year accreditation 4
Provisional accreditation 0
Denial 0
Scheduled for Review 1
Source: National Committee for Quality Assurance, 1998.
Perception of Healthcare Quality
in Greater Phoenix
(n=1,024)
“Who do you believe has the most say about
the healthcare you receive?”
(n=1,024)
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
Good 44%
Excellent 28%
Poor 8%
Fair 20%
Insurance plan or
company 48%
You (the
patient) 33%
Other 6%
Doctor 13%
45
__
Environment
7% of Greater Phoenix residents believe the environment is
the most important factor in our regional quality of life.
1998 Environment Indicators
Number of Days Exceeding Federal Air Quality Standards
Special Focus: Perception of Air Quality
Water Consumption
Type of Water Residents Drink at Home
Selected Land Uses
Perception of Desert Preservation Efforts
Special Focus: Urban Growth Concepts
Population Growth
Perception of Population Growth
Education
Families and Youth
Public Safety and Crime
Economy
Health/Health Care
ENVIRONMENT
Transportation and Mobility
Arts, Culture and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 6% 7%
category rank 6th 6th
’97
Survey
’98
Environment Survey
46
__
What the indicator is:
Because air pollution problems are often visible
or have detrimental health affects for certain
vulnerable populations, many citizens have
come to regard air quality as an indicator for the
overall environmental health of a region.
Three main pollutants affect air quality: carbon
monoxide, ozone and particulate matter. More
than 80% of carbon monoxide pollution is
emitted by automobiles. Similarly, the majority
of ozone pollution (not visible to the eye) also
comes from cars. The highly-visible particulate
pollution, which constitutes a large portion of
the “brown cloud,” is made up of dust from
roads, fireplaces, and vehicle emissions.
What the data say:
Although uncontrollable weather patterns have a
great deal of influence over regional air quality,
1997 had few hazardous air violation days. Zero
violations were recorded for particulate matter
and carbon monoxide, and only two days
recorded exceedence for ozone. Nonetheless, air
quality continues to be one of the most
contentious regional quality of life issues because
of both public perception and the implications of
stricter regional air quality goals set forth by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
As in the 1997 quality of life survey, most
residents of the region continue to hold a
perception that air quality in Greater Phoenix is
of “fair” or “poor” quality (88%). Just better than
one out of ten residents (12%) reported they
believe the region has “good” air quality; 1%
said “excellent.”
Number of Days per Year With an
Exceedence of Federal Air Quality Standards
(Maricopa County, 1992-97)
*24-hour standard data
Source: Maricopa County, 1998.
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Ozone
Perception of Air Quality
in Greater Phoenix
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
3 Ozone
2
5
0
3 3 2
0 2 0
6
11
5
Carbon Monoxide
0 Particulates*
2
4
6
8
10
12
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
0
2
50
40
30
20
10
Excellent Good Fair Poor
1997 1998
1%
12%
46%
42%
47%
40%
11%
1%
SPECIAL FOCUS:
PERCEPTION OF AIR QUALITY
Residents’ Perception of Regional
Air Quality as a Health Hazard
1997 1998
11% 10%
20% 19%
53% 54%
12% 12%
3% 4%
1% 1%
Residents Reporting Refraining from
Certain Outdoor Activities Because
of Poor Air Quality
1997 1998
33% 31%
66% 69%
1%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
47
__
ENVIRONMENT
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Varying little from the survey conducted one
year ago, a majority of residents in Greater
Phoenix believe that our region’s air quality is
at least “somewhat dangerous” to their health
(54%). As in 1997, nearly three out of ten
residents think the air we breathe is either “very”
or “extremely” dangerous.
Also similar to the 1997 survey, a large
percentage of local residents indicated that the
region’s poor air quality has influenced their
leisure or recreational activities. About one-third
of all persons in the survey (31%) said
they have refrained from certain outdoor
activities because of bad air.
EXTREMELY DANGEROUS
VERY DANGEROUS
SOMEWHAT DANGEROUS
REFRAINED FROM OUTDOOR ACT.
DID NOT REFRAIN
DON’T KNOW
NOT VERY DANGEROUS
DON’T KNOW
NOT AT ALL DANGEROUS
48
__
What the indicator is:
In an urbanized desert region, water is of obvious
importance; our viability would be threatened
without it. In 1974, Congress passed the safe
drinking Water Act to ensure that every water
supplier provides drinking water that meets
health-based safety standards set by the EPA. The
chart to the left indicates the estimated
population served by a community water system
that had one or more violations of EPA standards
during a fiscal year. Sustainable water
consumption is also integral to the future of our
region. To plan for the state’s continuous and
future water needs, the Arizona Department of
Water Resources annually estimates the per capita
(individual) daily consumption of water.
What the data say:
Although not all health-based water system
violations indicate an immediate cause for
concern because most contaminants are
unhealthful only if ingested at high levels over a
lifetime, the number of people exposed to some
form of health-based concern in Greater Phoenix
is large. Recent years have shown a slight decline.
Water consumption shows a second consecutive
year of decline in 1997. However many factors
account for fluctuations in water usage, including
citizen water conservation and the weather.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Instead of surveying residents about their water
consumption, the Quality of Life Survey gathers
perceptual data about an issue that rose to
prominence during the public focus groups
conducted for this project: drinking water
quality.
As in 1997, the vast majority of residents of
Greater Phoenix (77%) regularly choose to
drink water other than that which comes directly
out of their tap. About three out of ten residents
filter their water, while nearly half (46%) report
they drink bottled water.
Estimated Greater Phoenix Population Served by
a Community Water System in Violation
(Maricopa County, 1992-1997)
1,400,000
1,050,000
700,000
350,000
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
systems in violation 22 31 22 22 23 6
Source: Safe Drinking Water Information System, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Data listed are for fiscal
year. Source: Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1998.
Water Consumption
(daily per capita use in gallons in Phoenix Active
Management Area, 1991-96)
Source: Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1998.
Type of Water Greater Phoenix Residents
Report Drinking at Home
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
Daily Per Capita Use (gallons)
200
250
1992 1993 1994 1995
225
231
239
233
1996
230
50
40
30
20
10
Tap Water Filtered Bottled Other
1997 1998
26% 28%
45%
1%
23%
30%
46%
1%
326,884
1,367,433
1,204,079
1,292,873
1,249,765
1,015,833
Population
Served
49
__
ENVIRONMENT
What the indicator is:
In both 1990 and 1995, the Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG) surveyed
the region’s municipalities to identify a variety
of land-uses. More than 24 categories were
used to classify specific land uses in the region.
The figures to the left reflect those land uses
that are closely related to open space/desert.
The category “dedicated open space” also
includes mountain preserves and desert washes.
What the data say:
With the conversion of more than 42,000 acres
to residential or commercial use, between 1990
and 1995 the equivalent of 0.97 acres per hour
were developed (i.e., roughly “an acre an hour”).
During this period, the amount of dedicated open
space increased on a net-acreage basis, however,
the figure actually declined on a per capita basis.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
The 1998 survey data shows a negligible change
in public opinion about the region’s efforts to
preserve the desert environment. As in 1997,
responses split roughly into thirds: a third thinks
the region is doing poorly on desert
preservation, a third gives a “fair” assessment,
and a third believes the region is doing “good.”
Only 5% indicated the region was doing an
“excellent” job to preserve the desert.
Selected Land Uses
(acreage in Maricopa County, 1990 and 1995)
1990 1995
Dedicated open space 1,787,388 1,813,375
Commercial 108,768 109,863
Per Capita Land Use in Maricopa County
Source: Maricopa County, based on land-use reports
submitted by individual cities and towns to the Maricopa
Association of Governments, 1990 and 1995.
Perception of Desert Preservation Efforts
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1990 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995
Dedicated Commercial
open space
Agriculture Residential
0.13 0.12
0.21
0.16
0.84
0.71
0.05 0.04
Residential 287,450 328,633
Agriculture 448,152 411,133
40
30
20
10
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t
Know
1997 1998
5%
31% 31% 30%
2% 3%
31%
34%
29%
4%
50
__
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
In 1998, there has been increased discussion on
the editorial pages, in the legislature, and among
citizens regarding the issue of managing Greater
Phoenix’s physical growth differently, and how
certain changes might affect regional quality of
life. In light of this dialogue, several survey
questions were added to the Morrison Institute/
Arizona Republic Quality of Life Survey to
assess residents’ views regarding a few of the
concepts being discussed. (Note: These
questions were asked of residents in May 1998,
when discussions of several ballot initiatives
relating to growth were still very active.)
Although nearly two-thirds of residents
acknowledged being “not very” or “not at all”
familiar with the specifics of any of the possible
urban growth plans being brought forward, the
vast majority indicated they favor the broad
concept of “urban growth boundaries.” Seventy-five
percent said they think boundaries should
be imposed to spell out where development can
and cannot occur in the region.
As a follow-up to the growth boundary question,
residents were asked who they would prefer to
manage growth, state or local government.
Sixty-four percent indicated they think that local
government, not the state, should be the
primary agent responsible for growth
management.
SPECIAL FOCUS:
URBAN GROWTH CONCEPTS
“How familiar are you with any plans to
change the way urban growth is managed in
the Valley?”
“Do you think that growth boundaries
spelling out where development can and
cannot occur should be imposed?”
“Do you think that growth should be
managed by your local government or the
state?”
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
Very familiar 7% Somewhat familiar 29%
Not very
familiar 31%
Not at all
familiar 33%
Don't know 1%
Yes 75%
Don't know 7% No 18%
Local government
only 64%
Don't know 8% State government
only 28%
51
__
ENVIRONMENT
Population Estimates and Growth
(Maricopa County, 1990-97)
Source: Center for Business Research, College of Business,
Arizona State University.
Population Density
(persons per square mile, selected western
urbanized areas, 1996)
1995 1996
5,430 5,490
4,332 4,449
3,477 3,522
2,883 2,889
2,406 2,458
2,290 2,308
2,134 2,220
1,944 1,988
1,919 1,964
Source: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Oct. 1997.
Residents’ Perception of Population Growth
in Greater Phoenix
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1 9 9 5 1996 1997
Annual Growth 2.4% 2.8% 3.2% 3.6% 3 . 1 % 3.7% 3.2%
Population
2,527,000 2,621,000
2,364,000 2,450,000
2,291,000
2,229,000
2,177,000
2,706,000
LOS ANGELES/LONG BEACH
SAN JOSE
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
DENVER
SEATTLE
GREATER PHOENIX
HOUSTON
DALLAS
What the indicators are:
A high rate of population growth over time can
have both positive and negative influences on
quality of life. In addition to the economic
stimulus this additional population naturally
provides, negative effects on environmental and
human systems can also result.
The graph to the left depicts the Greater Phoenix
region’s population growth during the 1990s, as
estimated by ASU’s Center for Business
Research.
Figures regarding population density are
calculated by the U.S. Department of
Transportation, and based on persons per square
mile in the urbanized area of a region.
“Urbanized area” refers to the portion of the
metropolitan area that is built up and contains at
least 1,000 persons per square mile.
What the data say:
Greater Phoenix continued a long streak of
annual population growth in the 3% range in
1997. Although there was a slight decrease in
the growth rate from 1996, the region added
more than 85,000 residents during the year, a
net increase of 232 residents per day.
The population density of Greater Phoenix
increased in 1996, although roughly in
proportion to its western peer regions. Los
Angeles and San Jose still remain more than
twice as dense as Greater Phoenix, however,
Houston and Dallas are even less population-dense
than this region.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Virtually unchanged from the 1997 survey, 78%
of Greater Phoenix residents believe that the
region is growing “too fast” in 1998. About one
in five (20%) think the area’s population growth
is “about right.”
100
75
50
25
10
Too Fast About Right Too Slow No Opinion
1997 1998
77%
21%
1% 1% 1% 1%
78%
20%
53
__
Transportation and Mobility
3% of Greater Phoenix residents believe that the region’s
transportation and mobility systems are the most important
factors in our regional quality of life.
1998 Transportation and Mobility Indicators
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled
Perception of Freeway System
Annual Per Capita Miles of Transit Service
Perception of Bus Transit System
Special Focus: Commute
Education
Families and Children
Public Safety and Crime
Economy
Health/Health Care
Environment
TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY
Arts, Culture and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 3% 3%
category rank 7th 7th
’97
Survey
’98
Transportation and Mobility Survey
40
30
20
10
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t
Know
1997 1998
54
__
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT)
(per capita in selected western urbanized areas,
1995-96)
1995 1996
30.0 29.8
25.6 25.7
24.5 24.5
22.7 22.2
21.7 21.7
21.7 21.6
20.8 21.6
20.8 21.5
21.2 21.0
Source: Federal Highway Administration, data published
October 1997.
Residents’ Perception of Greater Phoenix’s
Freeway System
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
What the indicator is:
The amount of time one spends going to and
from work can have a profound impact on
personal quality of life. If it is a short trip, the
commuter might have more time to spend with
family, or simply relax. A longer commute can
mean increased automobile expenses for gas and
maintenance, and frequently, increased driver
frustration. The Federal Highway Administration
compiles regional figures for daily vehicle miles
traveled (DVMT), and uses the figures as a gauge
of overall travel activity on the nation’s highways.
DVMT is computed by multiplying the annual
average daily traffic by the mileage for all the
interstates, highways and principal arterials for
which the annual average daily traffic is reported.
Data listed are for urbanized areas.
What the data say:
Greater Phoenix continues to be at the low end
of this peer group among per capita vehicle
miles traveled, according to the FHA data. At
21.5 miles per day on average, the Phoenix
commuter drives roughly the same distance as
his or her counterpart in Denver, Portland, Los
Angeles, and San Diego. However, while the
mileage is roughly similar among these regions,
congestion and other unique regional conditions
can have a significant impact upon how long it
takes to travel the same distance in each of these
regions. Thus, although the mileages are
similar, the commute times may not be.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
The perception that Greater Phoenix residents
hold regarding the regional freeway system
improved slightly between 1997 and 1998. As
new freeway miles continue to open, a
combined 39% of area residents now rate the
freeway system as either “excellent” or “good”
as opposed to 33% in 1997.
DALLAS
HOUSTON
SEATTLE
SAN JOSE
SAN DIEGO
LOS ANGELES
PORTLAND
GREATER PHOENIX
DENVER
4%
29%
37%
28%
2%
5%
34% 33%
1%
27%
Annual Per Capita Miles of Transit Service
(in selected western urbanized areas, 1996)
1996
32.9
22.6
22.3
15.1
14.3
13.5
9.5
Source: Federal Transit Administration Section 15 report
data, compiled and provided by Regional Public
Transportation Authority (RPTA), 1998.
Residents’ Perception of Greater Phoenix’s
Bus Transit System
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
40
30
20
10
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t
Know
1997 1998
55
__
TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY
What the indicator is:
For most residents, the amount of transit service
in the region affects their quality of life directly
or indirectly on a daily basis. For those who use
transit as a means of mobility, the impact is
more direct than for those who drive and often
unknowingly benefit from fewer vehicles on
the road because of transit.
Comparative per capita miles of transit service
provides insight into the amount of transit
service offered in various regions. The figures
are computed by dividing a region’s total annual
miles of transit by the total population for the
urbanized area.
What the data say:
Per capita transit figures for 1996 show Greater
Phoenix far behind this group of western peer
regions, at just over 9 miles of service per
capita. Seattle, Portland and Denver have more
than twice as much transit service as Phoenix.
The Dallas region saw a substantial increase in
1996 due to the opening of a new light rail
system.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
While public opinion regarding the region’s
freeway system rose slightly between the 1997
and 1998 quality of life surveys, the perception
of the regional transit system slipped. Only a
combined 18% rated it either “excellent” or
“good” in 1998, versus 23% in 1997. In
addition, the percentage of persons who
indicated they had no opinion about the quality
of the regional bus transit system increased
slightly in 1998 to 20%.
SEATTLE
PORTLAND
DENVER
SAN DIEGO
DALLAS
SAN JOSE
GREATER PHOENIX
1%
17%
21%
41%
20%
17%
35%
25%
21%
2%
SPECIAL FOCUS: COMMUTE
Residents’ Perceived Change
in Commute Time During the Past Year
(n=660)
Reported One-Way Commute Time Among
Those Who Drive Alone or Carpool
(n=580)
1997 1998
22% 15%
34% 34%
23% 26%
14% 15%
5% 7%
2% 1%
0% 2%
Residents Indicating Their Employer Gives
Them the Opportunity to Work From Home
or Telecommute
(n=660)
1997 1998
YES 27% 30%
NO 73% 70%
By Income (1998) yes no
<$30,000 15% 85%
$50-75,000 35% 65%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
56
__
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
While a majority of survey respondents (56%)
believe their commute time was about the same as
the year prior, 29% reported a longer commute,
up slightly from 24% in 1997.
When asked about the specific duration of their
drive to work, roughly half of all respondents
(49%) reported a time of less than 20 minutes.
However, in comparison to 1997, one notable
change stands out: In 1998, slightly fewer
residents reported a commute time of less than
10 minutes (15% in 1998 versus 22% in 1997).
Once heralded as the prototype form of work in
the future, telecommuting is now becoming the
modern form of work. In 1998, three out of ten
local survey respondents reported that their
employer gives them the opportunity to do their
job from home, up slightly from the 1997
survey figure of 27%.
As in the 1997 survey, responses to the
telecommuting question showed a relationship
to the amount of reported household income.
Almost half (49%) of those reporting an annual
household income above $75,000 said they had
the ability to telecommute, while 15% of those
earning less than $30,000 reported similarly.
Note: B+ecause these questions were asked of a
sub-population of the sample of 1,024, the
margin of error could be greater than +/-3.0%.
Less than 10 minutes
10-20 minutes
20-30 minutes
30-45 minutes
45-60 minutes
More than 60 minutes
Don’t know
$30-49,000 21% 79%
>$75,000 49% 51%
60
40
20
Increased Decreased About the
Same
Don’t Know
1997 1998
24%
13%
63%
0% 3%
56%
12%
29%
57
__
Arts, Culture and Recreation
3% of Greater Phoenix residents believe that arts, culture and
recreation are the most important factors in our regional
quality of life.
1998 Arts, Culture and Recreation Indicators:
Financial Support for the Arts
Perception of Arts and Cultural Amenities
Attendance at Art and Cultural Events, Museums
Residents Reporting a Visit to a Museum or Arts/Cultural Event
Per Capita Attendance at Professional Sporting Events
Residents Reporting Attending a Sports Event
Acreage of Parks and Golf Courses
Perception of Parks’ Quality
Education
Families and Children
Public Safety and Crime
Economy
Health/Health Care
Environment
Transportation and Mobility
ARTS, CULTURE AND RECREATION
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 2% 3%
category rank 9th 8th
’97
Survey
’98
Arts, Culture and Recreation Survey
58
__
What the indicators are:
Arts and cultural institutions rely on a variety of
funding sources such as ticket and merchandise
sales, fundraising, contributions from individuals,
corporations, and foundations, plus grants from
local, state, and federal governments. Fifty-two
representative arts and cultural organizations
reported on public and private earned and
contributed income for 1996-97 and 1997-98. The
figures do not reflect endowment or investment
income for the non-profit organizations nor do
they include revenue from any for-profit arts and
cultural organizations.
What the data say:
A substantial increase is noted in the total figure
for the 52 organizations for 1997-98, with the
most recent year’s total 11% above 1996-97 and
13% more than 1995-96. Earned and private
funds rose substantially in 1997-98 while
government contributions decreased. The
increase in earned and private funds can be
traced to significant growth in a select number
of arts and cultural institutions, stepped-up
programs at various organizations, and a strong
regional economy. The reduction in government
funds is due more to changes in federal support,
than to funding at the state and local levels.
In 1997-98, the region’s major state and local
government sources for arts and cultural
organizations (Arizona Commission on the Arts,
Arizona Humanities Council, Phoenix Arts
Commission, and Tempe Municipal Arts
Commission) contributed over $3 million to
arts organizations in Maricopa County and
across Arizona.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Residents’ perceptions of the quality of local
arts and cultural amenities went up slightly in
1998, with a combined 69% reporting either
“excellent” or “good,” up from 65%. A
combined one in four residents believe that the
quality of arts and culture in Greater Phoenix is
“fair” or “poor.”
Earned and Contributed Support for Major
Non-Profit Arts and Cultural Institutions
(performing arts, museums, zoo, festivals and
cultural facilities in Greater Phoenix, 1996-98)
1996-97
Total $65,559,472
1997-98
Total $73,729,806
Sources: Phoenix Arts Commission, Arizona Commission
on the Arts, Morrison Institute for Public Policy, 1998.
Data were gathered from a combination of sources
including grant applications for public funds, annual
reports, contacts with organizations, and public arts and
cultural agencies. Since organizations’ fiscal years and
types and definitions of revenue differ, some reported
estimates. Some of the fluctuation in the funding available
from government and private sources is due to annual
competitive processes, the funders’ priorities, and the
extent to which they match the needs of metropolitan
Phoenix’s institutions year to year.
Residents’ Perception of the Quality of Arts
and Cultural Amenities in Greater Phoenix
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
Millions $42,069,375
$8,809,314
$14,680,784
Contributed
(government)
Earned Contributed
(private)
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
Millions $50,060,355
$6,821,230
$16,848,221
Contributed
(government)
Earned Contributed
(private)
$50
60
45
30
15
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t
Know
1997 1998
16%
53%
21%
5% 4% 6% 6%
24%
51%
14%
59
__
Attendance at Arts and Cultural Events
(in Greater Phoenix, 1995-98)
Sources: Phoenix Arts Commission, Arizona Commission
on the Arts, Morrison Institute for Public Policy, 1998.
Residents Reporting A Visit to a Local Museum or
Attending a Local Arts or Cultural Event During
the Past Year
1997 1998
YES 67% 71%
NO 33% 29%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
What the indicator is:
It has been said that a community can be judged
by its commitment to the arts and culture. In
Greater Phoenix, arts and cultural institutions,
and their support from the public, continue to
grow.
Total attendance was derived from 52
representative non-profit arts and cultural
organizations located throughout the Valley.
What the data say:
Attendance at arts and cultural events is
growing. Although the 1996-97 figure dipped
slightly from the previous year, 1997-98
participation increased notably. Attendance has
grown approximately 15% in two years. Nearly
6 million residents and visitors participated in
the cultural life of Greater Phoenix in 1997-98.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Perhaps consistent with the slight rise in the
positive perception of arts and cultural quality in
the region, more residents reported in 1998 that
they have recently attended an arts event or
visited a local museum. More than seven out of
ten residents indicate they visited a local
arts/cultural institution or museum during the
past year.
ARTS, CULTURE AND RECREATION
0
5
10
Millions
4,909,551
4,754,239
5,877,549
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
60
__
What the indicator is:
For many, professional sports teams exist as
symbols of community pride, and thus, they can
reflect on a region’s quality of life. As of 1998,
Greater Phoenix enjoys a “big city” sports
distinction shared by only a handful of other
U.S. metropolitan areas: a professional sports
franchise in the four major sports (basketball,
football, hockey, and baseball).
Per capita attendance is computed by dividing
the total attendance at all professional sports
events by the region’s population. The 1997
data include attendance figures from the
Arizona Cardinals, Arizona Rattlers, Cactus
League Spring Training, Phoenix Coyotes,
Phoenix Firebirds, Phoenix International
Speedway, Phoenix Mercury, the Phoenix Open,
and the Phoenix Suns. Because they began play
in spring, 1998, figures for the Arizona
Diamondbacks will be included in the 1998
computation of this indicator.
What the data say:
Total attendance at Greater Phoenix
professional sporting events climbed higher in
1997, to more than 4,000,000. In addition, the
per capita attendance figure rose as well, despite
an overall population growth rate in the region
greater than 3%. With the addition of the
Arizona Diamondbacks, professional sporting
attendance should jump significantly in 1998.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Perhaps consistent with the excitement
generated by the new teams and the increase
seen in per capita attendance, the percentage of
persons indicating they have recently attended a
major sporting event in Greater Phoenix rose
slightly from 50% in 1997 to 53% in 1998. This
increase, however, is within the surveys’ +/-3.0%
margin of error.
Attendance at Professional Sporting Events
(in Greater Phoenix, 1994-97)
Per Capita 1.54 1.27 1.58 1.59
Sources: Individual teams, Maricopa County Sports
Commission and Morrison Institute for Public
Policy, 1997.
Residents Reporting Attending a Major
College or Professional Sporting Event in
Greater Phoenix During the Past Year
1997 1998
YES 50% 53%
NO 50% 47%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
3,649,700
Millions
3,082,549
3,947,648
3.0
3.5
4.0
1994 1995 1996 1997
4,317,149
61
__
ARTS, CULTURE AND RECREATION
What the indicator is:
Outdoor parks serve an important role in any
region’s quality of life. In addition to providing
citizens with a place to walk the dog or have a
picnic, parks also enable a convenient escape
from the urban environment.
The acreage of park and golf course land in
Greater Phoenix (not including dedicated open
spaces) provides an indicator of the amount of
land residents have available for immediate
recreation. The acres per 1,000 residents figure
is computed by dividing the total acreage of
parks and golf courses by the total population.
Data are from Maricopa County, provided by
individual cities in 1990 and 1995.
What the data say:
Measured only every five years through a land
use survey of the region’s municipalities, the
total acreage of park and golf course land
increased by more than 7,000 acres between
1990 and 1995. Despite this increase, however,
the per capita average of park recreational land
actually decreased during the period because of
a significant population increase.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
The percentage of residents reporting using a
public park in the last year changed little from
1997 to 1998. Nearly four out of five residents
(79%) say they have used a park recently.
What do residents think about the overall
quality of the region’s public parks and recreation
areas? As in 1997, nearly 80% believe the parks
are either “excellent” or “good” in 1998. Only
about one in five (17%) hold an opinion which is
less than good.
Acreage of Parks and Golf Courses*
(per 1,000 residents in Maricopa County, 1990 and
1995)
Source: Data provided by individual cities to Maricopa
County in 1990 and 1995. Rate calculated by Morrison
Institute for Public Policy, 1997.
* Parks do not include designated open spaces
Residents Reporting Using a Public Park in
Greater Phoenix During the Past Year

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

1998 Edition:
Indicators of Our
Quality of Life
What Matters
in Greater Phoenix
MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
This project was made
possible through the
financial support of:
The Arizona Republic
Greater Phoenix
Economic Council (GPEC)
Honeywell
Motorola
DMB Associates
Xerox Corporation
In 1996, ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy began asking
residents and leaders in Greater Phoenix, “What does quality of life mean
to you, and how do you measure it?” After an 18-month process, the
first volume of What Matters was published in September 1997, creating a
baseline of opinion and data about “quality of life” and what it means to
the people who live here. This second volume of What Matters updates
the baseline reported in the 1997 edition.
To date, more than 2,300 people from all walks of life and every corner of
the metropolitan area have participated in this community dialogue about
quality of life through focus groups, public meetings, individual
interviews, regionwide telephone surveys and correspondence.
In addition, representatives from more than 80 local, state and national
organizations have been engaged during the past two years, including (in
alphabetical order):
American Lung Association • Arizona Audubon Council • Arizona
Commission on the Arts • Arizona Commission for Postsecondary
Education • Arizona Department of Economic Security • Arizona
Department of Education • Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality • Arizona Department of Health Services • Arizona Department of
Transportation • Arizona Education Association • Arizona Federation of
Teachers Unions • Arizona Hospital and Health Care Association • Arizona
House of Representatives • Arizona Humanities Council • Arizona
Libraries Association • Arizonans for Cultural Development • Arizona
Office of Tourism • Arizona Public Service Company (APS) • Arizona Rail
Passengers Association • Office of the Arizona State Treasurer • ATLATL
Inc. • Arizona Transit Association • ASU Center for Business Research •
ASU College of Business • ASU College of Fine Arts • ASU School of
Public Affairs • Central Arizona Homebuilders • Central Arizona Shelter
Services (CASS) • City of Chandler • Children’s Action Alliance •
Community Housing Resources • COMPAS • Downtown Phoenix
Partnership • East Southern Avenue Property Owners Association • Flatt &
Associates • Friendly House • Gallagher & Kennedy • City of Glendale •
Goldwater Institute • Office of the Arizona Governor • Governor’s Council
on Spinal Injuries • Greater Phoenix Urban League • Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations • League of Arizona Cities and
Towns • Maricopa County Attorney’s Office • Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors • Maricopa County Community College District • Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Office • Maricopa County Sports Commission • City of
Mesa Police Department • National Council of La Raza • Norwest Bank •
NotLA • O’Neil Associates • Peoria School District • Phoenix Arts
Commission • Phoenix Chamber of Commerce • Office of the Phoenix
Police Chief • Office of the Phoenix City Manager • Phoenix College •
Phoenix Union High School District • Quality of Life Stewardship Council
• Regional Public Transportation Authority • Roosevelt Action Association
• Rural/Metro Fire Department • Self Employment Loan Fund • City of
Scottsdale • Southwest Airlines • Superior Court of Arizona • Phoenix
office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development •
Valley Leadership • Westmarc
3
__
What Matters in 1998: Summary Table ................................................................5
What Matters in Our Quality of Life ....................................................................6
What’s New and Different in 1998 ......................................................................6
How to Read This Report ....................................................................................9
Inter-Regional Comparison Indicators Summary ........................................10-11
Education Indicators
Stanford Achievement Test Scores ......................................................................14
Graduation Rates ................................................................................................15
Parents’ Perceptions of Public and Private School Quality..................................15
Incidents on School Grounds..............................................................................16
Parents’ Perceptions of Public and Private School Safety ....................................16
Ratings of Local Colleges and Universities..........................................................17
Perception of Local College and University Quality ..........................................17
Families and Youth Indicators
Median Home Sales Price and Home Affordability............................................20
Perception of Mortgage Payment Burden ..........................................................20
Average Apartment Rent ....................................................................................21
Perception of Rent Payment Burden ..................................................................21
Estimated Child and Total Poverty Rates............................................................22
Perception of Child Poverty ................................................................................22
Reported Cases of Child Abuse ..........................................................................23
Perception of Child Abuse ..................................................................................23
Petitions Filed for Domestic Violence Orders of Protection ..............................24
Perception of Domestic and Spousal Violence....................................................24
Special Focus: Child Care....................................................................................25
Public Safety and Crime Indicators
Violent Crime Rate ............................................................................................28
Perception of Violent Crime ..............................................................................28
Property Crime Rate............................................................................................29
Perception of Property Crime..............................................................................29
Special Focus: Personal Safety..............................................................................30
Juvenile Arrests for Violent, Property and Drug Offenses ..................................31
Perception of Gangs ............................................................................................31
Average Law Enforcement Response Time ........................................................32
Perception of Law Enforcement Quality ............................................................32
Economy Indicators
Cost of Living......................................................................................................34
Perception of Change in Cost of Living..............................................................34
Per Capita Personal Income ................................................................................35
Perception of Change in Household Income......................................................35
Unemployment Rate ..........................................................................................36
Perception of Job Security ..................................................................................36
Special Focus: Job Satisfaction ............................................................................37
Special Focus: Internet Connectivity ..................................................................38
Contents
Project Manager/
Principal Researcher:
Ryan Johnson
With Assistance From:
Jamie Goodwin-White
Rob Melnick
Nancy Welch
Rupam Raja
Mary Jo Waits
Jack Pfister
Publication
Coordinator:
Karen Leland
Original Design:
Davia Design
1998 Update:
ASU Creative
Communications Group
The Morrison Institute for
Public Policy (School of
Public Affairs, College of
Public Programs) is an
Arizona State University
resource for objective
public policy analysis
and expertise. The
Morrison Institute
researches public
policy issues, informs
policy makers and
residents and advises
leaders on choices and
actions.
4
__
Health and Health Care Indicators
Persons Reporting No Health Insurance..........................................................40
Selected Causes of Death..................................................................................41
Current Accreditation Status of Hospitals........................................................42
Perception of Hospital Quality ........................................................................42
Current Accreditation Status of Healthcare Plans............................................43
Perception of Healthcare Quality ....................................................................43
Environment Indicators
Number of Days Exceeding Federal Air Quality Standards ............................46
Special Focus: Perception of Air Quality ..........................................................47
Water Consumption ........................................................................................48
Type of Water Residents Drink at Home ........................................................48
Acreage of Selected Land Uses..........................................................................49
Perception of Desert Preservation Efforts ........................................................49
Special Focus: Urban Growth Concepts ..........................................................50
Population Growth ..........................................................................................51
Perception of Population Growth ....................................................................51
Transportation and Mobility Indicators
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled ............................................................................54
Perception of Freeway System ..........................................................................54
Annual Per Capita Miles of Transit Service ......................................................55
Perception of Bus Transit System......................................................................55
Special Focus: Commute..................................................................................56
Arts, Culture and Recreation Indicators
Financial Support for the Arts ..........................................................................58
Perception of Arts and Cultural Amenities ......................................................58
Attendance at Art and Cultural Events, Museums ..........................................59
Residents Reporting a Visit to a Museum or Arts/Cultural Event ..................59
Per Capita Attendance at Professional Sporting Events....................................60
Residents Reporting Attending a Sports Event ................................................60
Acreage of Parks and Golf Courses ..................................................................61
Perception of Parks’ Quality ............................................................................61
Community Indicators
Per Capita Contributions to United Way ........................................................64
Perception of How Business Gives Back to Community ................................64
Volunteerism at 20 Agencies and Organizations..............................................65
Reported Volunteerism ....................................................................................65
Special Focus: Sense of Community ................................................................66
Hate Crimes......................................................................................................67
Perception of Racism Problem ........................................................................67
Voter Turnout ..................................................................................................68
Perception of Local Government Quality ........................................................68
Taxes and Tax Burden ......................................................................................69
Perception of Tax Burden ................................................................................69
Data Notes and Sources..............................................................................70-71
Contents continued
Copyright 1998 by the
Arizona Board of Regents
for and on behalf of
Arizona State University
and its Morrison Institute
for Public Policy
5
__
What Matters in 1998: Status of Selected Quality of Life Indicators1
Standardized test scores (Stanford 9) at
public schools are on the rise. Graduation
rates at public high schools are increasing.
Incidents at public schools resulting in
charges against students are on the rise.
Median home prices are rising, but
affordability is still good comparatively.
Average apartment rent has risen three
years in a row.
Estimated child poverty has declined for a
second straight year.
Reports of child abuse have risen recently.
Violent crime rate has declined for three
consecutive years.
Property crime rate declined, but is still
highest among eight western peer regions.
The violent crime arrest rate for juveniles
is down.
Per capita personal income has risen four
consecutive years.
Unemployment has remained very low in
recent years. Compared to eight western
peers, Phoenix only lags behind Denver.
All hospitals and most health care plans in
Greater Phoenix are accredited, and many
are highly rated in accreditation standards.
Violations for three major air pollutants are
down in recent years.
Population growth has been rapid during
the 1990s with average growth >3%
annually.
Per capita daily vehicle miles traveled are
rising consistently in recent years.
Per capita miles of transit service in
Phoenix is lowest among seven peer
regions.
Attendance at local art and cultural events
has risen in recent years.
Volunteerism has risen in recent years.
Schools are “excellent” or “good.”
(public school parents only) 2
Schools are “very” or “somewhat safe.”
(public school parents only) 2
Paying the monthly mortgage is
“a struggle.” (homeowners only) 2
Paying the monthly rent is “a struggle.”
(renters) 2
Child poverty is a “severe problem.”
Child abuse is a “severe problem.”
Violent crime is a “severe problem.”
Property crime is a “severe problem.”
Gangs are a “severe problem.”
Earned more household income last year
than the year prior.
Think it is “not likely” they will lose their
job or be laid off in the coming year.
(employed persons only)2
Local hospitals are “good.”
Local health care is “good.”
Air quality is either “fair” or “poor.”
Population growth is occurring “too fast.”
The region’s freeway system is “good.”
The region’s bus transit system is “good.”
Attended an art or cultural event in the
past year.
Have volunteered in the last year.
1 Not all indicators and perceptions contained in the report are summarized here.
2 Because this question was asked of a sub-sample of the 1,024 residents in the survey, the margin of error is higher than +/- 3%.
• This was the first year this question was asked, and thus, no comparison to 1997 is possible.
* Indicates data do not reveal a clear case or are highly subject to personal interpretation.
FACTS PERCEPTIONS
regional indicator Are things
improving?
‘97
survey
‘98
resident perceptions survey
YES
NO
*
NO
YES
NO
YES
*
*
YES
YES
YES
YES
*
NO
NO
YES
YES
70%
83%
10%
21%
25%
33%
•
•
46%
42%
79%
•
•
87%
77%
29%
21%
67%
•
65%
77%
9%
16%
29%
44%
40%
31%
43%
47%
68%
56%
44%
88%
78%
34%
17%
71%
51%
Education
Families
and Youth
Public Safety
and Crime
Economy
Health and
Health Care
Environment
Transportation
and Mobility
Arts, Culture
and Recreation
Community
6
__
What Matters in Our Quality of Life
For years, the citizens of Greater Phoenix have talked about it, journalists have written about it, and
politicians have campaigned on it. But what is “quality of life”? And when people think about
quality of life, what matters most?
After engaging more than 1,100
citizens and opinion leaders in a
community dialogue about quality
of life, ASU’s Morrison Institute for
Public Policy first answered these
questions in September 1997 when
it published What Matters in
Greater Phoenix. For the first time,
the often-used but never-before
quantified concept of ‘quality of
life’ had been locally defined and
measured. A baseline for future
quality of life discussions had been
established. This second edition of
What Matters updates both the data
and perceptual indicators, and adds
a handful of important new ones.
The categories that provide the
framework for this discussion of
quality of life are presented in Table 1. These broad categories are themes under which indicators or
specific measures are organized. But they also serve another important function. By annually
prioritizing these categories through a regional survey, and tracking them over time, they serve as a
Table 1. What Matters Most in
Greater Phoenix’s Regional Quality of Life?*
In surveys conducted in 1997 and 1998, residents of Greater
Phoenix were asked to rank the most important factors among
nine quality of life categories.
* Margin of error for both surveys +/-3.0%. Please see sources for
information about how the surveys were administered and changes
made in the reporting of this question for 1998.
Table 2. What’s New and Different in What Matters 1998
Based on feedback received from What Matters 1997, a number of changes have been made to this report. There
are new indicators and old indicators which have changed. Here are the highlights:
• Urban Growth Concepts: In a special focus section for 1998, 75% of residents indicate they like the idea of
urban growth boundaries, but only 36% acknowledge familiarity with recent plans to manage growth (p. 50).
• Internet Connectivity: Data indicate that Greater Phoenix lags most of its western peer regions in the number of
internet hosts per 1,000 population (p. 38).
• Perception of How Business Gives Back: Seventy-four percent of residents give the local business community
a “good” or “fair” rating for how they give back to the larger community (p. 64).
• Hospitals and Health Care: Data from the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations
and the National Committee for Quality Assurance indicate that Greater Phoenix enjoys very good hospitals and
healthcare organizations. In turn, most residents believe that local hospitals and health care is either excellent or
good. Sixty-one percent of residents, however believe that an insurance company or their doctor has more say in
their healthcare than they do (p. 42-43).
• Child Care: Data from the Children’s Defense Fund indicates that residents of Greater Phoenix whose children
receive child care spend more than $4,000 per child per year, on average, for child care. Forty-three percent of
residents reported that the overall cost of child care in the region is “affordable” (p.25).
• Violent and Property Crime: Instead of asking about “crime” in general, What Matters 1998 asks residents how
they feel about violent and property crime separately (p.28-29).
1997
(n=1,012)
1. Education (26%)
2. Public Safety and Crime (20%)
3. Families and Youth (19%)
4. Health/Health Care (9%)
5. Economy (8%)
6. Environment (6%)
7. Transportation/Mobility (3%)
8. Community (2%)
8. Arts, Culture, Recreation (2%)
1998
(n=1,024)
1. Education (26%)
2. Families and Youth (21%)
3. Public Safety and Crime (18%)
4. Economy (9%)
5. Health/Health Care (8%)
6. Environment (7%)
7. Transportation/Mobility (3%)
7. Arts, Culture, Recreation (3%)
8. Community (2%)
7
__
gauge for our regional values. The fact that the category rankings have changed little between the
1997 and 1998 Morrison Institute/Arizona Republic Quality of Life Surveys tell us that these are the
things that are most important to the people who live in this region. In the broadest sense, these are
the things that matter; they are our regional values at this time.
Regional vs. Personal, Perception vs. Reality
As in 1997, what makes this report unique is the ability to consider quality of life not only from a
data perspective, but also from the perspective of how people who live in Greater Phoenix feel about
it. By presenting both statistics and opinions, the reader can compare what residents believe about an
issue to what the facts say
(perception vs. reality). For
example, how residents feel
about the level of violent
crime in the region can be
compared with what FBI
Uniform Crime Report
data tell us about the level
of violent crime in the
region. In addition, some
indicator and opinion data enable a comparison of how residents assess their personal lives versus
what the data indicate is happening at the regional level (personal vs. regional quality of life) for
instance, how residents view what has happened to their own household income during the past
year versus what the data tell us has happened to personal income in the region.
Taken in whole, What Matters tells the story of how people in Greater Phoenix perceive the region in
which they live, what they believe is getting better and worse, how they feel about their own lives,
and where perceptions of quality of life are aligned or misaligned with the facts.
What This Report Is Intended to Be and What It Isn’t
What Matters in Greater Phoenix is intended as both a decision-making tool and a general reference
for policy makers, civic and business leaders, and citizens. To improve the quality of this tool,
feedback has been continually sought since the release of the first edition to help refine the indicators
and make the report more useable.1
Based on input received and the availability of new data, several indicators have been added for 1998
(including a few new survey questions). Other indicators have been modified; table 2 highlights the
changes made. On the whole, however, the baseline established in the first What Matters remains
intact. The information contained here reflects what many leaders and citizens said was important
to their quality of life in 1997 and 1998.
A number of people who commented on the 1997 edition asked why an overall score or composite
number was not computed for quality of life in Greater Phoenix. Indeed, as in 1997, What Matters
1998 does not offer an overall grade or composite score for quality of life in Greater Phoenix. We
choose not to compute such a number for many reasons, including the inherent problems involved
with “normalizing” the data to make each indicator consistent (i.e., some indicators are measured in
Table 3. “how would you rate...”
Our Regional Quality of Life Your Personal Quality of Life
1997 1998 1997 1998
Excellent 9% 13% 23% 26%
Good 49% 52% 55% 54%
Fair 34% 27% 18% 16%
Poor 8% 7% 4% 4%
1We are vitally interested in hearing what you think about this publication, our methodology and what could be improved
or modified in future editions. Contact information is included on the back cover of this report; all opinions are welcome.
8
__
tens or hundreds, while others are recorded in the thousands and tens of thousands). Also, we believe
it is misleading to characterize our multi-faceted region and such a complex set of issues by an over-simplification.
Instead, we prefer to let the reader decide the overall status of Greater Phoenix’s
quality of life in 1998 based on his or her reading of the facts and perceptions. Some key highlights
and findings, however, are offered in summary tables.
About “Benchmarking”
A number of comments about What Matters 1997 suggested that, now that the baseline has been
established, a series of goals or benchmarks should be set for the indicators so that policy makers
and others can begin to make changes that will ultimately result in desirable movement of the
numbers. Indeed, other regions and states have used these “benchmarking” techniques to set future
targets for their indicators and to shape public policy.
In fact, it has been our hope from the beginning
of this project that policy makers, business
organizations and citizens groups take on this
challenge by “adopting” a specific indicator or
group of indicators and begin the dialogue about
goal setting, or benchmarking. In the absence of
such an activity, the quality of life in Greater
Phoenix will simply go whichever way it goes,
and not necessarily in the direction that citizens
and leaders desire. The Morrison Institute for Public
Policy would welcome and participate in any such
discussions of benchmarking.
Why the Indicator Data
Haven’t Changed Much
A casual glance through this report will reveal the
data indicators have not shown much change
between What Matters 1997 and this updated
edition. The reason is fairly simple: The forces that
impact Greater Phoenix’s quality of life are complex
and did not occur overnight. Changes in big picture
indicators such as student performance, water
consumption, and property crime usually occur
incrementally, not immediately. Significant changes
often take years, and are typically brought about by
coordinated efforts and dedicated resources
(see benchmarking discussion above).
One final caveat about this report is in order. Although the data here represent an interesting and
valuable resource, the readers should keep in mind that few indicators tell the whole story of what is
occurring. Some indicators may over-simplify very complex circumstances and dynamics. We have
attempted to point out instances in which this is the case.
Who Chose the Indicators in What Matters?
Ten focus groups conducted with regional
opinion leaders in late 1996 resulted in a list of
more than 300 potential indicators in the nine
overarching quality of life categories. To refine
the list of indicators, public meetings and focus
groups were conducted to identify those items
that the public also thought were important. The
remaining indicators were then screened using
three questions:
• Is the indicator measurable? If so, are the
data available at regularly measured
intervals?
• Is the indicator relevant to the quality of
life of a large portion of Greater Phoenix
residents? Is it understandable to people?
• Will the indicator respond to changes in
policy and law?
Indicators that met these criteria are contained
in What Matters in Greater Phoenix.
9
__
How to Read This Report
As in the first edition, the order of chapters in What Matters 1998 reflects the responses of 1,024
residents who were asked to prioritize nine quality of life categories. Because a majority of survey
respondents indicated education was once again the most important factor in our regional quality of
life, the education chapter and indicators appear first in the report. However, other chapters have
changed places for this 1998 edition, reflecting the changes in priorities reflected in Table 1 (p. 6).
The priority of the quality of life categories and thus
the order of the report’s chapters will be tracked in
future years to identify changes in how residents view
the broad themes that constitute regional quality of
life in Greater Phoenix.
Intra-Regional Comparisons
As in the first edition, survey data are sometimes
presented in tables that contain abbreviations
that correspond to geographic subregions of
Greater Phoenix. The legend at right explains
which cities and towns are captured by each
abbreviation.
Special Focus Indicators
Those pages in the report designated as Special
Focus indicate a topic or set of indicators that are
special to this edition of What Matters. Often,
these are the “issues of the day” in Greater
Phoenix, and are highlighted through special
survey questions or data that bring new insight
to the topic.
Inter-Regional Comparisons
For certain indicators, figures for Greater Phoenix are compared with other, similarly sized or
configured western regions, such as Portland, Oregon and Denver, Colorado. These comparisons
were made only when identical data for the other region were available and where it added interest to
the analysis. Although the Los Angeles region has a much larger population base than that of Greater
Phoenix, it is included in the comparisons because it is often cited as “what we don’t want to
become.” A summary of the inter-regional comparison indicators follows on pp. 10-11.
Reading the Survey Data Tables ...
All = All 1,024 respondents to the
region wide random-sample
survey
PHX = respondents residing in the
City of Phoenix (except
Ahwatukee; see SE)
NW = Surprise, El Mirage, the Sun
Cities, Youngtown, Peoria,
Glendale
NE = Scottsdale, Paradise Valley and
Fountain Hills
SE = Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Tempe,
Queen Creek, Guadalupe,
Ahwatukee
SW = Tolleson, Avondale and Litchfield
Park
10
__
WHAT MATTERS IN 1998: Greater Phoenix vs. Western Peer Regions
Status of Selected Quality of Life Indicators
Affordability of Homes
(ranking out of 193 regions)
1997 rank*
112th
123rd
125th
146th
172nd
180th
183rd
189th
191st
Source: National Association of Homebuilders, 1998.
*ranking of 1 = most affordable in U.S.,
193= least affordable
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 20.
SAN JOSE
DENVER
GREATER PHOENIX
HOUSTON
DALLAS
LOS ANGELES
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
SEATTLE
Cost of Living
1997
117.6
107.3
105.9
103.6
100.0
98.2
Source: American Chambers of Commerce Researchers
Association (ACCRA), 1997. Data is for 4th quarter, 1997.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 34.
LOS ANGELES/LONG BEACH
PORTLAND
DENVER
GREATER PHOENIX
DALLAS
U.S. AVERAGE
Rate of Violent Crime
(violent crimes per 100,000 residents)
1996
1,278
859
784
727
710
668
562
460
Source: Crime in the United States, U.S. FBI, 1996 data
published in October 1997.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 28.
DENVER
LOS ANGELES
HOUSTON
DALLAS
PORTLAND
GREATER PHOENIX
SAN JOSE
SAN DIEGO
Per Capita Personal Income
(amount and ranking out of 320 metro areas)
1996 Rank*
$35,395 4
$31,372 13
$29,234 24
$28,513 29
$27,195 39
$26,228 53
$24,945 75
$24,282 91
$23,377 121
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, 1998.
* Ranking of 1=highest income, 320=lowest.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 35.
SAN JOSE
SEATTLE
DENVER
DALLAS
HOUSTON
PORTLAND
LA-LONG BEACH
SAN DIEGO
GREATER PHOENIX
Unemployment Rate
1996 1997
3.8% 2.8%
3.7% 3.0%
5.0% 3.3%
4.0% 3.7%
5.3% 4.2%
4.5% 4.3%
5.2% 5.0%
8.2% 6.8%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998.
Data for San Jose, Ca. were not available.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 36.
DENVER
GREATER PHOENIX
SEATTLE
DALLAS
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
HOUSTON
LOS ANGELES/LONG BEACH
Property Crime Rate
(property crimes per 100,000 residents)
1996
7,062
5,565
4,955
4,902
4,173
4,164
3,913
3,458
Source: Crime in the United States, U.S. FBI, 1996 data
published in October 1997.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 29.
SAN JOSE
GREATER PHOENIX
DALLAS
DENVER
HOUSTON
LOS ANGELES
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
11
__
Internet Hosts Per Capita*
(Internet hosts per 1,000 population, county)
1997
Santa Clara (San Jose, CA) 398.60
Denver (Denver, CO) 85.27
San Diego (San Diego, CA) 61.60
King (Seattle, WA) 46.47
Dallas (Dallas, TX) 35.90
Multnomah (Portland, OR) 33.77
Maricopa (Greater Phoenix) 24.40
Harris (Houston, TX) 22.09
Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA) 21.72
Source: Matrix Information and Directory Services
(MIDS), 1998.
* An “Internet host” is a computer through which one
accesses the Internet. Because multiple users may access
the Internet through a single host (e.s., at work or school)
the number of hosts does not necessarily correspond to the
total number of computers or the number of Internet users
in the region.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 38.
Daily Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT)
(urbanized areas)
1995 1996
30.0 29.8
25.6 25.7
24.5 24.5
22.7 22.2
21.7 21.7
21.7 21.6
20.8 21.6
20.8 21.5
21.2 21.0
Source: Federal Highway Administration, data published
October 1997.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 54.
DALLAS
HOUSTON
SEATTLE
SAN JOSE
SAN DIEGO
LOS ANGELES
PORTLAND
GREATER PHOENIX
DENVER
Population Density
(persons per square mile, urbanized areas)
1995 1996
5,430 5,490
4,332 4,449
3,477 3,522
2,883 2,889
2,406 2,458
2,290 2,308
2,134 2,220
1,944 1,988
1,919 1,964
Source: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Oct. 1997.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 51.
LOS ANGELES/LONG BEACH
SAN JOSE
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
DENVER
SEATTLE
GREATER PHOENIX
HOUSTON
DALLAS
Annual Per Capita Contributions to United Way
1996 1997
$30.62 $36.78
$16.72 $17.58
$15.78 $15.47
$13.70 $14.74
$12.28 $13.47
$11.42 $11.92
$8.27 $8.34
Source: Valley of the Sun United Way 1998.
Data for Houston were unavailable.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 64.
SEATTLE
DALLAS
DENVER
SAN JOSE
GREATER PHOENIX
PORTLAND
SAN DIEGO
Annual Per Capita Miles of Transit Service
(urbanized areas)
1996
32.9
22.6
22.3
15.1
14.3
13.5
9.5
Source: Federal Transit Administration Section 15 report
data, compiled and provided by Regional Public
Transportation Authority (RPTA), 1998.
For additional information on this indicator,
please see page 55.
SEATTLE
PORTLAND
DENVER
SAN DIEGO
DALLAS
SAN JOSE
GREATER PHOENIX
13
__
Education
26% of Greater Phoenix residents believe that education is
the most important factor in our regional quality of life.
1998 Education Indicators
Stanford Achievement Test Scores
Graduation Rates
Parents’ Perceptions of Public and Private School Quality
Incidents on School Grounds
Parents’ Perceptions of Public and Private School Safety
Ratings of Local Colleges and Universities
Perception of Local College and University Quality
EDUCATION
Families and Youth
Public Safety and Crime
Economy
Health/Health Care
Environment
Transportation and Mobility
Arts, Culture and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 26% 26%
category rank 1st 1st
’97
Survey
’98
Education Survey
Stanford Achievement Test Scores
(in Maricopa County public schools, Spring 1997
and Spring 1998)
Source: Arizona Department of Education, 1998.
14
__
What the indicator is:
After eight years of using the Iowa Test of Basic
Skills (ITBS), the Arizona Department of
Education began administering the Stanford
Achievement Test (Stanford 9) in 1997. Thus,
two years of standardized, norm-referenced data
are now available to compare scores in
Maricopa County to those of other students
around the nation. The scores presented in the
graphic are in percentile for Maricopa County,
by grade level, for the last two years.
A “norm-referenced” test means that each
student’s achievement can be compared to the
achievement of a representative national sample
of public school students of the same age and
grade level, at a particular point in time. Thus, a
bar that reaches the 40% mark in 1998 indicates
that 60% of students nationwide scored higher
than students in Greater Phoenix in 1998. A score
near the 50th percentile indicates performance
that is about average when compared with other
students of the same grade level around the nation
(the Stanford 9 was last “normed” in 1995).
What the data say:
Six of ten grade levels in Maricopa County saw
higher Stanford 9 reading scores in 1998.
Despite this improvement, four grade levels
(grades 3, 9, 10 and 11) still remain at or below
the national average.
In math, the scores for all ten grade levels rose.
All grade levels in Maricopa County are now
testing beyond the 50th percentile (national
norm) in math.
The language portion of the exam is still
problematic for Maricopa County students.
Despite better scores in nine of the ten grade
levels, seven grade levels still test below the
national norm.
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 GRADES
READING
U.S. (50%)
'97
'98
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 GRADES
MATH
U.S. (50%)
'97
'98
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 GRADES
LANGUAGE
U.S. (50%)
'97
'98
Graduation Rates in Maricopa County and Arizona
Source: Arizona Department of Education, latest data
released July, 1998.
Parents’ Perceptions of Public School Quality
(n=262)
Parents’ Perceptions of Private School Quality
(n=32)
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for Public
Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may not add
to 100% due to rounding.
15
__
What the indicator is:
According to the Arizona Department of
Education (ADE), “high school graduation rates
are useful indicators of the success of various
school improvement programs and reform
efforts in general.” (Graduation Rate Study for
the Class of 1994, ADE, 1996).
The data presented here are based on a study in
which enrollment is tracked over a four-year
period. The graduation rate is the proportion of
students who complete the requirements for a
high school diploma within a four-year period.
What the data say:
Ten years ago, the Arizona Department of
Education adopted the National Education Goal
of increasing high school graduation rates to
90% by the year 2000, with an interim goal of
85% by 1996.
The data show fairly slow and steady progress
in increasing graduation rates in both Maricopa
County and Arizona. In 1996, graduation rates
rose significantly. Despite the progress, however,
graduation rates are still short of the 85%
statewide goal for 1996.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
As in last year’s regionwide Quality of Life
Survey, parents of public school students in
Greater Phoenix rate local public school quality
high in 1998: 65% indicated either “excellent”
or “good.” Parents with children enrolled in
private schools report extremely high
satisfaction: 98% said their child’s private
school quality was either “excellent” or “good.”
Note: Because these questions were asked of a
sub-sample of the 1,024 residents surveyed, the
margin of error is greater than +/- 3.0%.
Maricopa County
Arizona
68% 69.3%
70.8% 71.1%
60%
70%
80%
1993 1994 1995 1996
72.6%
81.1%
68.9%
74.3%
Good 37%
Fair 23%
Excellent 28%
Poor 11%
Good 40% Excellent
58%
No Opinion 2%
EDUCATION
Somewhat safe
17%
Very safe
80%
No opinion 3%
Somewhat safe
44%
Unsafe 16% Very safe
33%
Very unsafe 4%
16
__
What the indicator is:
A number of highly publicized shootings on
school campuses in the U.S. and a handful of
studies regarding school violence have brought
the topic of school safety to prominence in
1998.
This indicator represents the number of
incidents occurring on public school grounds in
Maricopa County that result in the intervention
of law enforcement and charges being filed
against a student. The figures do not include
incidents involving persons coming from outside
of a school and committing a crime on campus.
What the data say:
While these figures illustrate the fact that many
potentially illegal incidents occur on school
campuses, caution should be exercised in
drawing conclusions about the apparent trend
here. Additional years are needed before the
seemingly large rise in the rate of incidents rate
can be confirmed. Although some more
incidents may be occurring on local campuses,
it is likely that better recordkeeping and more
accurate reporting are also having some
influence in altering these numbers.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Despite the figures indicating a rise in school
incidents, the majority of parents with children
enrolled in both public and private schools in
Greater Phoenix believe that their children are
in a safe environment at school. Seventy-seven
percent of public school parents report that they
believe their child is safe at school (vs. 83% in
the 1997 Quality of Life survey). In addition,
and virtually identical to last year, nearly 100%
of private school parents think their child is
“very” or “somewhat” safe at school.
Note: Because these questions were asked of a
sub-sample of the 1,024 residents surveyed, the
margin of error is greater than +/- 3.0%.
Students Against Whom Charges Were Filed for
Incidents Occurring on School Grounds
(rate per 1,000 students in Maricopa County public
schools, 1994-97)
Source: Figures for 1996-97 calculated by Morrison
Institute based on information from Arizona Department of
Education (ADE) Report Cards. Previous year figures
provided by ADE.
Note: Incidents occurring at schools with grades 7-9 were
tabulated with the elementary schools, not the high
schools.
Parents’ Perception of Public School Safety
(n=262)
Parents’ Perception of Private School Safety
(n=44)
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for Public
Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may not add
to 100% due to rounding.
High school
2.2 Elementary
1.4
3.9
5.9
1
2
3
4
5
6
1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997
4.7
11.4
7
8
9
10
11
12
17
__
EDUCATION
Ratings of Colleges and Universities
by U.S. News & World Report
(in Greater Phoenix, 1992 and 1996-98)
1998 - American Graduate School of
International Management ranked best
(#1) international business program
- ASU Graduate Schools:
- Architecture ranked 19th in U.S.
- Education ranked 27th in U.S.
- Public Affairs ranked 30th in U.S.
- Business ranked 31st in U.S.
- Law ranked 44th in U.S.
- ASU undergraduate education ranked
in tier three (117th -174th) among “best
national”universities
1997 - American Graduate School of
International Management ranked best
(#1) international business program
- ASU Graduate Schools:
- Architecture ranked “top 20”
- Education ranked “top 50”
- Business ranked 43rd in U.S.
- Law ranked 44th in U.S.
1996 - ASU undergraduate education ranked
in tier three (116th- 172nd) among 229
“best national” universities
- ASU undergraduate business program
ranked 24th in U.S.
1992 - Maricopa Community Colleges
highlighted in U.S. News’ America’s
Best Colleges issue.
Source: U.S. News & World Report, 1992 and 1996-98.
Perception of Local College and
University Quality
(n=211)
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998.
What the indicator is:
U.S. News & World Report has been ranking
American universities and colleges for the past
decade. Although the way the rankings are
calculated has been refined numerous times
and several statistical measures are used, the
rankings are not scientific. In 1998, they are
based on more than a dozen weighted criteria,
including faculty resources, student selectivity,
and alumni giving rate. “Academic reputation,”
derived from a survey of more than 1,400 four-year
schools, is the most heavily weighted
criteria, accounting for 25 percent of the final
score for all schools. Graduate school rankings
are calculated similarly.
What the data say:
ASU’s undergraduate education was ranked
between 117th and 174th (tier three) among the
“best national universities” although it received
an academic reputation score of 2.7 (out of 4.0),
higher than several schools in the top 50.
ASU’s graduate programs continue to rank high,
and the American Graduate School of
International Management took top honors
again as best international business program in
the nation.
Although community colleges are not ranked by
U.S. News & World Report, the magazine did
feature Maricopa Community Colleges in a
1992 issue.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Just under 90 percent of residents who are
enrolled in a local college or university (or who
have a household member enrolled) believe the
education being offered is either “excellent” or
“good.” Overall, the generally high regard
residents of Greater Phoenix hold for our local
colleges and universities changed little from
1997-1998.
Note: Because this question was asked of a sub-sample
of the 1,024 residents surveyed, the
margin of error is greater than +/- 3.0%.
Good 43%
Refused 1%
Fair 11%
Excellent
43%
Poor 2%
19
__
Families and Youth
21% of Greater Phoenix residents believe the status of
families and youth children is the most important factor in
our regional quality of life.
1998 Families and Youth Indicators
Median Home Sales Price and Home Affordability
Perception of Mortgage Payment Burden
Average Apartment Rent
Perception of Rent Payment Burden
Estimated Child and Total Poverty Rates
Perception of Child Poverty
Reported Cases of Child Abuse
Perception of Child Abuse
Petitions Filed for Domestic Violence Orders of Protection
Perception of Domestic and Spousal Violence
Special Focus: Child Care
Education
FAMILIES AND YOUTH
Public Safety and Crime
Economy
Health/Health Care
Environment
Transportation and Mobility
Arts, Culture and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 19% 21%
category rank 3rd 2nd
’97
Survey
’98
Families and Youth Survey
20
__
What the indicators are:
In addition to affecting the regional economy
profoundly, home ownership opportunities and
the affordability of housing affect the quality of
life of most individuals and families. The
median price trend for new and resale homes
depicted is for single-family homes only in
Maricopa County from 1993 to 1997.
The inter-regional comparison data are from the
National Association of Homebuilders’ Housing
Opportunity Index. The NAHB annually
measures the proportion of homes sold in a
specific housing market that a family earning
the median income in that market could afford
to purchase. The Index also takes property tax
and insurance rates into consideration in each
community ranked.
What the data say:
Continuing a steady trend, the median price of
both new and resale homes rose in Greater
Phoenix during 1997. The median resale home
price finished 8.2% higher in 1997 than in 1996,
while the cost of the median new home
increased 4.1%. Sales of both new and resale
homes in Greater Phoenix were strong in 1997,
fueled by low interest rates and population growth.
Among the western peer regions compared,
Greater Phoenix continues to be second most
affordable, according to the NAHB. Only
Denver ranked as a more affordable housing
market at the end of 1997. Portland, San Jose,
San Diego, Los Angeles and Seattle, were among
the 25 least affordable housing markets.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
The vast majority of the homeowners surveyed
in Greater Phoenix indicate that their mortgage
payment is easy or about right. Nevertheless,
about one out of ten residents reports struggling
to make the monthly payment.
Note: Because this question was asked of a sub-sample
of the 1,024 residents surveyed, the
margin of error is greater than +/- 3.0%.
Median Home Sales Price
(new and resale single family homes in Greater
Phoenix, 1993-97)
Source: Arizona Real Estate Center, L. William Seidman
Research Institute, College of Business, Arizona State
University, 1998.
Affordability of Homes
(out of 193 U.S. regions, 1996 and 1997 ranking)
1996 1997
91st 112th
110th 123rd
122nd 125th
147th 146th
n/a 172nd
166th 180th
174th 183rd
178th 189th
181st 191st
(Ranking of 1 = most affordable in U.S., 193= least
affordable)
Source: National Association of Homebuilders, 1998. Data
is for 4th quarter, 1997.
Valley Residents’ Level of Comfort in Making
Their Monthly Mortgage Payment
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for Public
Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may not add
to 100% due to rounding.
Resale
New
$60,000
$90,000
$120,000
$150,000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
$112,500
$124,475 $127,600
$130,750
$84,000 $87,225 $90,500
$97,000
$105,000
$136,130
Other 16% A struggle 9%
Refused 3%
Make it easily 35% About right 37%
SAN JOSE
DENVER
GREATER PHOENIX
HOUSTON
DALLAS
LOS ANGELES
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
SEATTLE
21
__
FAMILIES AND YOUTH
What the indicator is:
For individuals and families who don’t own
homes, quality of life as it relates to housing
means the monthly expense of rent.
The trend line indicates the average cost of an
apartment (regardless of the number of
bedrooms) in Maricopa County apartment
complexes with 50 or more units.
What the data say:
Consistent with the rising median cost of new
and resale homes, average monthly apartment
rent continues to rise steadily in Greater
Phoenix, according to RealData Inc. The rate
of increase in apartment rent, however, appears
to be slowing somewhat: after rising nearly 9%
between 1994 and 1995, the increase was only
5% in 1997.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Eighty-one percent of apartment renters in the
1998 Quality of Life Survey reported their rent
payment was either “about right” or that they
“make it easily.” Sixteen percent reported a rent
payment that is “a struggle.”
When looking at the affordability of rent from
the perspective of families versus individuals,
however, the struggle seems to be greater. As in
the 1997 survey, a higher percentage of those
with one or more children reported struggling
with the monthly rent.
Note: Because this question was asked of a sub-sample
of the 1,024 residents surveyed, the
margin of error is greater than +/- 3.0%.
Average Apartment Rent
(in apartment complexes with 50 or more units in
Maricopa County, 1994-97)
Source: RealData Inc., 1998.
Valley Residents’ Level of Comfort in Making
Their Monthly Rent Payment
(n=305 renters)
No children 1 or more children
A struggle 13% 21%
Make it easily 40% 34%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for Public
Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998.
$483
$526
$554
$400
$500
$600
1994 1995 1996 1997
$582
+8.9% +5.3% +5.0%
A struggle 16%
Refused 1%
About right 44%
Make it easily 37%
Other 2%
About right 45% 43%
22
__
What the indicator is:
Poverty can affect quality of life on both a
personal and regional level. On a personal
level, poverty for a child can mean inadequate
health care, even hunger. On a regional level,
high rates of child and total poverty can incur
large costs to society and government.
Because poverty data are gathered in the U.S.
Census only every ten years, estimates of child
poverty become less accurate as they extend
further from the base year (in this instance,
1990). The U.S. figures in the graphic are based
on the Current Population Survey, adjusted to
match the 1990 census. The Maricopa County
poverty rates are based on the relationship
between the poverty rate and the change in per
capita personal income. Note: Based on updated
data, some adjustments to the estimates in What
Matters 1997 are reflected here.
What the data say:
Both total and child poverty in Maricopa
County generally appear to be on the decline
since the 1993-94 period. Maricopa County
child poverty dropped below the national child
poverty rate in 1994, and remained below in
1995 and 1996. Strong economic
conditions in Arizona and the U.S. have helped
to reduce poverty.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
A small percentage of Greater Phoenix residents
are expressing additional concern about the
severity of child poverty in the region in 1998,
increasing the percentage in the category “a
severe problem” from 25% in 1997 to 29% in
1998. The percentage of respondents indicating
child poverty as only a “minor problem” or “not
a problem” changed little between the two
surveys, and stands at roughly 20%.
Estimated Child Poverty and Total Poverty Rates
(in Maricopa County and U.S., 1992-96)
Est. child poverty in Maricopa County
Est. child poverty U.S.
Est. total poverty in Maricopa County
Source: Center for Business Research, College of Business,
Arizona State University.
(child poverty relates to those younger than 18 years old)
Perception of Child Poverty in Greater Phoenix
1997 (n=1,012) 1998 (n=1,024)
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for Public
Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may not add
to 100% due to rounding.
10%
15%
20%
25%
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
21.0%
20.7%
15.9% 16.0%
21.4%
22.2% 20.7%
20.5%
14.9% 13.6%
18.9%
19.5%
13.5%
18.6%
19.2%
50
40
30
20
10
A Severe
Problem
A
Problem
Minor
Problem
Not a
Problem
Don’t
Know
25%
29%
50%
46%
15% 15%
5% 4% 5% 6%
Reported Cases of Child Abuse or Neglect
(calls to the child abuse hotline in Maricopa County
meeting the criteria for a report of child maltreatment
valid for investigation/assessment, fiscal years1996-98)
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security,
Department of Children, Youth and the Family, Child
Protective Services, 1999. Rate per 1,000 calculated by
Morrison Institute for Public Policy, based on county
population estimates of persons below age 18.
.
Perception of Child Abuse in Greater Phoenix
1997 1998
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
23
__
FAMILIES AND YOUTH
What the indicator is:
In cases of child abuse, poor personal quality of life
is fairly obvious for the child being abused and
probably also for the adult who is perpetrating the
maltreatment. But a region’s quality of life can also
be affected by this crime too, as it is society that often
pays a variety of costs in the aftermath of abuse.
Determining the precise amount of abuse and
maltreatment that occurs in a community is difficult
to measure because it is often a “hidden” crime.
Thus, surrogate measures, such as reported cases of
child maltreatment to Child Protective Services,
must be used as general — although potentially
inaccurate — barometers of the level and extent of
child abuse in the region. The figures are for reports
of child abuse phoned in to CPS meeting a certain
criteria, whether investigated or not, that meet the
legal criterion of being an allegation of abuse or
neglect of a child under 18 years of age at the hands
of a parent, guardian, or caretaker.
What the data say:
This indicator shows a rise in both rate per 1,000
children and total reported cases between 1996
and 1997, before a leveling-off in 1998. Because
of the region’s continued strong in-migration of
population, the relatively small drop in reported
cases caused a more notable decline in rate of
abuse per 1,000 children. Overall, despite the
inherent under-reporting problem, it is clear
that at least three children in 100 are abused.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Perhaps reflecting the increased media attention
on the issue, a slightly larger percentage of
Greater Phoenix residents believe in 1998 that
child abuse is a “severe” problem in the region,
and fewer believe it is only a “minor” problem.
Eighty-five percent of area residents now rate
child abuse as either “a problem” or a “severe
problem,” compared with about 80% in 1997.
50
40
30
20
10
A Severe
Problem
A
Problem
Minor
Problem
Not a
Problem
Don’t
Know
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1996 1997 1998
18,802
21,265 21,189
26.5 29.1 27.6
Rate
per 1,000
children
33%
44%
47%
41%
13%
10%
3% 1%
4% 4%
24
__
What the indicator is:
Like child abuse, it is assumed that many
domestic violence incidents go unreported. One
way to assess the general trend in domestic
violence, however, is to examine the number of
domestic violence orders of protection filed in
the county’s limited jurisdiction (municipal
and justice) courts. The graph to the left
depicts the number of petitions filed for orders
of protection during the last several years.
What the data say:
Petitions for orders of protection in Maricopa
County grew substantially in both 1994 and
1995 before declining in 1996. Despite the
decline in 1996, however, the overall rate of
increase surpassed the overall rate of population
growth in the region during this three year
period, indicating an absolute rise in the rate of
petitions filed.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
As with child abuse, a slightly larger percentage
of Greater Phoenix residents believe in 1998
that domestic and spousal violence is either a
“problem” or a “severe problem” in the region.
Seventy-nine percent reported one of those two
answers in 1998, while about 75% indicated
similarly in 1997. Those who indicated
domestic and spousal violence as a “severe
problem” increased by 8% in 1998.
Petitions Filed for Domestic Violence
Orders of Protection
(in Maricopa County, 1993-96)
Source: Arizona Supreme Court. As of August 1998, the
1996 data is the most current figure.
Note: Data are for limited jurisdiction courts only. Data is
for the fiscal year indicated.
Perception of Domestic and Spousal Violence
in Greater Phoenix
1997 1998
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
9,000
12,000
15,000
1993 1994 1995 1996
10,761
12,448
9,281 10,916
50
40
30
20
10
A Severe
Problem
A
Problem
Minor
Problem
Not a
Problem
Don’t
Know
25%
33%
50%
46%
15%
14%
4% 3%
5% 4%
25
__
FAMILIES AND YOUTH
What the indicator is:
In 1998, the Children’s Defense Fund, in
coordination with the National Association of
Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies,
conducted a comprehensive survey of child care
in all 50 states. The figures presented to the left
reflect the CDF findings for Greater Phoenix
and three western peer regions. Because the
costs listed are for only one child in day care,
parents with several children can spend
significantly more than the amount listed.
What the data say:
Greater Phoenix’s comparative ranking
regarding the cost of child care closely mirrors
the cost of living data found earlier in this
report. As with cost of living, Greater Phoenix
finishes quite affordable among this small group
of peers.
Nevertheless, despite this data and the fact that
Arizona recently lowered the income eligibility
for low-income families to receive child care
assistance, the state still ranks among the
bottom 20 in making low-income families
eligible for assistance, according to the Children’s
Defense Fund. In addition, cost data do not
reflect an important issue in issue in child care:
quality.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Only those residents of Greater Phoenix who
reported they regularly placed a child in day
care were asked their opinion of the expense of
child care. Most of the 77 people who responded
indicated that child care in the region is either
“affordable” (43%) or only “moderately
expensive” (38%). Four percent of the 77 Phoenix
residents indicated child care is “inexpensive;” 6%
reported it to be “very expensive.”
Note: Because this question was asked of a sub-sample
of the 1,024 residents surveyed, the
margin of error regarding these results could be
substantially greater than +/- 3.0%.
SPECIAL FOCUS: CHILD CARE
Average Annual Cost of Child Care
(in child care centers in selected western regions,
1998)
12 month-old
Seattle $8,840
Denver $5,096
Dallas $4,838
Greater Phoenix $4,738
4 year-old
Seattle $6,136
Denver $4,576
Greater Phoenix $4,076
Dallas $3,789
Source: Children’s Defense Fund, Child Care Challenges,
May 1998. Data for San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles,
Portland, and Houston not available.
27
__
Public Safety and Crime
18% of Greater Phoenix residents believe the level of public
safety and crime is the most important factor in our regional
quality of life.
1998 Public Safety and Crime Indicators
Violent Crime Rate
Perception of Violent Crime
Property Crime Rate
Perception of Property Crime
Special Focus: Personal Safety
Juvenile Arrest Rates for Violent, Property and Drug Offenses
Perception of Gangs
Average Law Enforcement Response Time
Perception of Law Enforcement Quality
Education
Families and Youth
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CRIME
Economy
Health/Health Care
Environment
Transportation and Mobility
Arts, Culture and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 20% 18%
category rank 2nd 3rd
’97
Survey
’98
Public Safety and Crime Survey
28
__
What the indicator is:
Each October, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) releases Crime in the United
States, a detailing of the nation’s violent and
property crime statistics for the year prior.
The agency suggests that the unique economic,
demographic, and geographic circumstances of
each region should be considered when
examining the data comparatively. The violent
crimes counted in determining the violent crime
rate include: murder and non-negligent
manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault. Data listed are for
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).
What the data say:
As with the 1995 violent crime data, Greater
Phoenix finishes closer to the bottom than the
top of this list of western peer regions.
In addition, the 668 violent crimes per 100,000
residents was the third consecutive year of
declines for the region, as illustrated by the
trend graphic. Although not yet official,
preliminary 1997 data released in spring 1998
indicate that Greater Phoenix will probably
record a fourth consecutive year of decline.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Despite the recent declines in FBI data for the
region, 85% of residents of Greater Phoenix
believe violent crime in the region is either a
“severe problem” or at least “a problem.”
On an intra-regional basis comparing
responses from various parts of the Greater
Phoenix region not much difference is
revealed regarding the perceived level of violent
crime.
Violent Crime Rate
(violent crimes per 100,000 residents in selected
western metropolitan areas, 1995 and 1996)
1995 1996
1,423 1,278
856 859
819 784
727 727
795 710
765 668
615 562
513 460
(Data for Seattle not available)
Violent Crime Trend in Greater Phoenix
(crimes per 100,000 residents)
Source: Crime in the United States, U.S. FBI, 1996 data
published in October 1997.
Perception of Violent Crime
in Greater Phoenix
Phx NW NE SE SW
Severe problem 43% 42% 32% 40% 46%
Minor problem 10% 9% 11% 13% 11%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
DENVER
LOS ANGELES
HOUSTON
DALLAS
PORTLAND
GREATER PHOENIX
SAN JOSE
SAN DIEGO
A problem 43% 46% 49% 46% 40%
Not a problem 4% 1% 6% 1% 1%
750 668
807
768
765
600
800
1000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Problem 45%
Don't know 1%
Minor problem 11%
Severe problem 40%
Not a problem 3%
29
__
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CRIME
What the indicator is:
Also from the FBI’s latest report, 1996 Crime in
the United States, the property crime rate
includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft,
motor vehicle theft, and arson. The data listed
are for metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).
What the data say:
As with the 1995 data, Greater Phoenix finds
itself atop this list of western peer regions for
property crimes per 100,000 residents. Because
of a significant automobile theft problem, the
rate of property crime in this region is more than
double that of San Jose, and even higher than
that of Los Angeles.
Despite the poor comparative ranking, Greater
Phoenix saw a considerable reduction in the
property crime rate between 1995 and 1996.
However, because of several successive years of
increase in the mid-1990s, the region’s 1996
property crime rate still remains above the rate
recorded in 1992.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Although property crime in the region has seen
a fairly level to slightly upward trend in
contrast to the falling violent crime trend
Greater Phoenix residents believe the region’s
violent crime problem is more severe. Thirty-one
percent of those surveyed reported property
crime in Greater Phoenix to be “severe,” while
roughly 40% indicated a perception that violent
crime is “severe.”
Property Crime Rate
(property crimes per 100,000 residents in selected
western metropolitan areas, 1995 and 1996)
1995 1996
8,044 7,062
5,752 5,565
5,078 4,955
4,778 4,902
6,011 4,173
4,719 4,164
4,236 3,913
3,630 3,458
(Data for Seattle not available.)
Property Crime Rate Trend in Greater Phoenix
(crimes per 100,000 residents)
Source: Crime in the United States, U.S. FBI, 1996 data
published in October 1997.
Perception of Property Crime
in Greater Phoenix
Phx NW NE SE SW
Severe problem 35% 38% 25% 26% 33%
Minor problem 11% 11% 21% 13% 12%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
SAN JOSE
GREATER PHOENIX
DALLAS
DENVER
HOUSTON
LOS ANGELES
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
A problem 46% 48% 47% 58% 52%
Not a problem 7% 2% 4% 2% 2%
7,062
6,715 6,981 7,522
8,044
6,000
8,000
10,000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Severe Problem 31%
A Problem 50%
Minor Problem 14%
Don't know 1%
SPECIAL FOCUS:
PERSONAL SAFETY
“How safe do you feel out alone at night
walking in your neighborhood?”
1997 1998
Phx NW NE SE SW
Very safe 34% 41% 52% 43% 25%
Somewhat unsafe 15% 12% 12% 12% 24%
Residents of Greater Phoenix Indicating
Personal, Family or Neighborhood Crime
’97 ’98
Stolen property or money 41% 43%
Phys. assault or mugging 9% 12%
...For any of the four crimes above
1997 1998
No Yes No Yes
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
30
__
50
40
30
20
10
Very Safe Somewhat
Safe
Somewhat
Unsafe
Very
Unsafe
Refused
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
The ability to feel safe walking alone in your
neighborhood at night, and/or being personally
touched by crime can profoundly impact how
one feels about personal quality of life. In both
1997 and 1998, the majority of Greater Phoenix
residents reported feeling safe walking in their
neighborhood; however, many have been
personally affected by crime in some way.
In 1997, 75% of those surveyed indicated they
feel either “very safe” or “somewhat safe”
walking alone in their neighborhood. In 1998,
those combined numbers rose slightly, to 79%,
with minor increases in both categories.
The disparity between residents living in
different regions of Greater Phoenix on this
issue, however, is notable. While persons living
in the northeast, northwest, and southeast
portions of Greater Phoenix reported in the mid-
80 percentile for combined responses of “very
safe” or “somewhat safe,” substantially fewer of
those living in the southwest region (59%)
reported similar feelings of personal safety.
Residents of Greater Phoenix were also asked
about any personal experience with having
money or property stolen, auto theft, physical
assault, or home burglary. In numbers nearly
identical to 1997, 43% said either they
personally, a family member, or a person in
their neighborhood had been the victim of stolen
property or money. One in four had been
victimized or knew someone who had been
victimized by auto theft, and about three out of
ten respondents had been the victim or knew a
victim of home burglary.
As in 1997, more than half of Greater Phoenix
residents in the survey reported that either they,
a member of their family, or someone in their
neighborhood had been the victim of one of the
four crimes during the previous year.
Auto theft 20% 23%
Home burglary 28% 29%
48% 52%
45%
55%
Somewhat safe 39% 43% 34% 40% 34%
Very unsafe 11% 2% 2% 5% 16%
1% 1%
8%
6%
16%
14%
36%
39% 40% 39%
Juvenile Arrest Rates for Violent, Property
and Drug Offenses
(arrests per 100,000 juveniles in Maricopa County,
1992-96)
Source: Raw data from Arizona Department of Public
Safety, published 1998. Rates calculated by Morrison
Institute.
Perception of Gangs as a Problem in
Greater Phoenix
1997 1998
Phx NW NE SE SW
Severe problem 50% 48% 29% 40% 50%
Minor problem 11% 6% 14% 13% 12%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
31
__
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CRIME
50
40
30
20
10
Severe
Problem
A
Problem
Minor
Problem
Not a
Problem
Don’t
Know
What the indicator is:
Recent incidents of school violence and
shootings in the U.S. have highlighted
increasing concerns about the violent tendencies
of the generation currently approaching
adulthood. This indicator, which measures the
number of juvenile arrests per 100,000 juveniles
in Greater Phoenix, provides insight into the
general trend of juvenile crime in this region.
Part I violent offenses include criminal
homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated
assault. Part I property crimes are burglary,
larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Part II drug offenses include the sale,
manufacture, or possession of illegal drugs.
What the data say:
Although the juvenile arrest rate for part I
violent offenses declined for the third
consecutive year in 1996, both part I property
and part II drug arrests rose. The rate of
juvenile arrests for illegal drugs has more than
doubled in Maricopa County since 1992.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Although not all juvenile crime is committed by
gangs, the perception of the gang problem
provides insight into how Greater Phoenix
residents view the general state of the juvenile
crime problem.
As in 1997, a large majority (83%) believe that
Greater Phoenix has a “problem” or a “severe
problem” with gangs; only about 14% indicate
the problem to be minor or non existent.
On an intra-regional basis, most persons view
the gang problem similarly, regardless of where
they live. A slight exception, however, is the
northeast portion of Greater Phoenix, where
more residents believe that gangs are either not
a problem, or are only a minor problem.
Part II drug
161.8
225.9
307.1
320.7
204.0 198.0
235.8
235.1
Part I violent
150
200
250
300
350
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
349.1
183.7
Part I property
1,588.9 1,499.6
1,353.5
1,320.3
1,000
1,500
2,000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1,344.5
A problem 34% 38% 48% 44% 35%
Not a problem 3% 5% 6% 1% 1%
1% 3% 3% 3%
10% 11%
40% 40%
46%
43%
50
40
30
20
10
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t
Know
32
__
What the indicator is:
The speed and efficiency of police response
impacts many citizens’ sense of security, and
thus, their quality of life. The data provided for
this indicator came from five of Greater
Phoenix’s largest police departments which
together provide public safety assistance to
more than 75% of the area’s population.
Data listed are for the highest priority calls.
Response time is measured from the time the
call is received to the arrival of the first unit or
officer on the scene.
What the data say:
The average response time for emergency police
calls in Greater Phoenix was faster for the
second straight year in 1997. Although the
figure has remained fairly constant through the
period, response time dropped below five
minutes for the first time since 1993.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
As in the 1997 survey, the majority of Greater
Phoenix residents in 1998 (55%) believe that
law enforcement quality is “good.” One-third of
respondents, however, believe local police
quality is only “fair” or “poor.”
When comparing responses on the quality of
police question among the various sub-regions
of the Greater Phoenix area, those in the
southwestern portion show the lowest approval:
40% reported “fair” or “poor.”
4.59
5.21
5.45
5.13
4
5
6
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
4.77
Average Law Enforcement Response Time
(response time in minutes for highest-priority calls
among five municipal police departments in Greater
Phoenix, 1993-97)
Source: information from Phoenix, Peoria, Glendale, Mesa
and Chandler police departments, compiled by Morrison
Institute, 1998.
Perception of Law Enforcement Quality in
Greater Phoenix
1997 1998
Phx NW NE SE SW
Excellent 9% 41% 52% 43% 25%
Fair 28% 27% 24% 23% 26%
Don’t know 3% 2% 2% 2% 0%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
Good 56% 43% 34% 40% 34%
Poor 4% 6% 6% 7% 14%
12%
56%
23%
6% 3% 2%
7%
26%
55%
10%
33
__
Economy
9% of Greater Phoenix residents believe the state of the
region’s economy is the most important factor in our quality
of life.
1998 Economy Indicators
Cost of Living
Perception of Change in Cost of Living
Per Capita Personal Income
Perception of Change in Income
Unemployment Rate
Perception of Job Security
Special Focus: Job Satisfaction
Special Focus: Internet Connectivity
Education
Families and Youth
Public Safety and Crime
ECONOMY
Health/Health Care
Environment
Transportation and Mobility
Arts, Culture and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 8% 9%
category rank 5th 4th
’97
Survey
’98
Economy Survey
34
__
What the indicator is:
Like the expense of a monthly mortgage or rent
payment, the overall cost of living in a region
can profoundly affect the personal quality of life
of individuals and families. A high cost of living
often means additional income is needed to meet
basic needs.
For the past 30 years, the ACCRA Cost of
Living Index has been comparing the costs of
goods and services in metropolitan and non-metropolitan
areas in the United States. Items
counted in the ACCRA Index include: groceries,
housing, utilities, transportation, health care,
and miscellaneous goods and services. The
average for all locations in the Index equals
100; thus any location with a score above 100
can be considered higher than average cost of
living, and below 100 has a lower cost of living
than the U.S. as a whole.
What the data say:
Greater Phoenix has the second-lowest cost of
living among this group of five western peer
regions in the fourth quarter, 1997.
Nevertheless, because it is over 100, the cost of
living in Greater Phoenix is slightly higher than
average in the U.S.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
As in 1997, two-thirds of residents (68%)
perceived only a little or moderate increase in
the region’s cost of living during the past year.
Nearly 20% reported seeing no increase
whatsoever in the area’s cost of living.
Cost of Living
(in selected western regions, 4th quarter 1997)
1997
117.6
107.3
105.9
103.6
100.0
98.2
Cost of Living Trend in Greater Phoenix
Source: American Chambers of Commerce Researchers
Association (ACCRA). A score of 100 is the average of all
places in the national survey. Data for San Diego, Seattle,
San Jose and Houston are not available.
Perception of Change in Greater Phoenix’s Cost
of Living During the Past Year
1997 1998
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
LOS ANGELES/LONG BEACH
PORTLAND
DENVER
GREATER PHOENIX
DALLAS
U.S. AVERAGE
50
40
30
20
10
Significant
Increase
Moderate
Increase
A Little
Increase
No
Increase
Don’t
Know
101.2
90
95
100
105
110
115
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
103.6
101.2 101.4 102.5
103.6
17%
35%
31% 33%
17% 18%
0% 1%
35%
13%
Per Capita Personal Income
1996 Rank*
$35,395 4
$31,372 13
$29,234 24
$28,513 29
$27,195 39
$26,228 53
$24,945 75
$24,282 91
$23,377 121
* out of 320 U.S. metropolitan statistical areas
ranked.
Per Capita Personal Income in Greater Phoenix
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, 1998.
Residents’ Perception of Change in Own
Household Income During the Past Year
1997 1998
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
35
__
ECONOMY
What the indicator is:
Working in combination with the region’s cost
of living influences, the level of income an
individual or family enjoys often determines
whether they meet basic needs, or live in greater
luxury.
Per capita personal income (PCPI) is calculated
by dividing the annual total income of residents
in the region by the number of residents.
Figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA).
What the data say:
Greater Phoenix continues to rank very low on
per capita personal income, both among its
western counterparts and in the U.S. as a whole.
The 1996 per capita figure of $23,377, which
represented a 5.4% increase over 1995, still lags
behind the national metropolitan average by more
than $2,000.
Reasons frequently cited for this region’s
relatively poor PCPI are a low employment-to-population
ratio (i.e., fewer people work), and a
higher proportion of employment in below-average
wage industries. The so-called
“sunshine factor”, the theory that people are
willing to work and live here for less money
because of the favorable weather, is also often
cited as a factor.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Consistent with the rise in PCPI during recent
years, a slightly higher proportion of Greater
Phoenix residents reported “more income” in
1998 than in 1997. Almost half of those
responding in 1998 said they brought in more
income last year, while fewer than one in ten
said their household income went down.
50
40
30
20
10
More Income Less Income Same Income Refused
SAN JOSE
SEATTLE
DENVER
DALLAS
HOUSTON
PORTLAND
LA-LONG BEACH
SAN DIEGO
GREATER PHOENIX
$19,103
$19,914
$20,999
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
$22,166
$23,377
42%
12%
45%
1%
47%
9%
42%
2%
Unemployment Rate in Selected Western Regions
1996 1997
3.8% 2.8%
3.7% 3.0%
5.0% 3.3%
4.0% 3.7%
5.3% 4.2%
4.5% 4.3%
5.2% 5.0%
8.2% 6.8%
(Data for San Jose, Ca. were not available)
Unemployment Rate Trend in Greater Phoenix
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1997.
Residents’ Perceptions of Possibility of Losing
Their Job or Being Laid Off in the Coming Year
(n=660 employed persons in 1998, 676 in 1997)
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
36
__
What the indicator is:
The general economic health of a region is often
reflected in unemployment figures if the
economy is strong, demand for goods and
services puts more people to work, and
unemployment declines.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes
quarterly unemployment data for the U.S. and
major metropolitan areas. The figures reported
are annual unemployment rate data.
What the data say:
In 1997, only the Denver metropolitan region
enjoyed a lower unemployment rate than
Greater Phoenix among this list of eight western
peer regions. In addition, the Phoenix metro
area experienced a drop of seven-tenths of a
percent in the unemployment rate during 1997.
Unemployment in the region has been below
5% in the last four consecutive years.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Despite the strength of the regional employment
picture and recent unemployment rate trend,
slightly fewer residents of Greater Phoenix
indicated a strong sense of job security in the
1998 Morrison Institute/Arizona Republic
Quality of Life Survey.
Although the majority still believe the
likelihood of losing their job in the coming year
is slim, those indicating it was absolutely “not
likely” to occur dropped from 79% to 68%.
Note: Because this question was asked to only a
sub-sample of the 1,024 residents in the survey,
the margin of error is somewhat greater than
+/- 3.0%.
DENVER
GREATER PHOENIX
SEATTLE
DALLAS
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
HOUSTON
LOS ANGELES/LONG BEACH
5.0% 4.7%
3.5% 3.7%
3.0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
80
60
40
20
Very Likely Somewhat
Likely
Somewhat
Not
Not Likely Don’t
Know
1997 1998
4% 5% 9%
79%
3% 3%
68%
16%
6% 7%
37
__
ECONOMY
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Nearly identical job satisfaction responses were
indicated by employed Greater Phoenix
residents in both the 1997 and 1998 Quality of
Life Surveys. Combined, more than 90%
expressed satisfaction with their work at either
the “somewhat” or “very” satisfied level.
When considering responses by self-reported
income level, however, some disparity is
revealed. Forty-two percent of those who
indicated they earned less than $30,000 per year
were “very satisfied” with their job, while 65%
of those earning $75,000 or more responded
similarly. Only about 1% of those in the highest
income bracket said they were “very
dissatisfied” in their job.
Spending more time at work apparently has
little affect on how individuals feel about their
job satisfaction: while more than a third
reported spending more time at work last year,
fewer than 10% overall reported being
dissatisfied with their job.
Income, however, does appear to affect the
amount of time spent at work: while nearly half
(46%) of those in the highest income category
reported spending “more time” on the job during
the previous year, only a third (33%) of those in
the lowest income category said the same.
SPECIAL FOCUS: JOB SATISFACTION
Job Satisfaction Among Residents
of Greater Phoenix
(n=660 employed persons in 1998, 676 in 1997)
Income (thousands) $75
Very Satisfied 42% 63% 59% 65%
Somewhat Dissatisfied 7% 7% 4% 8%
Don’t Know 4% 0% 0% 0%
Residents’ Perception of Amount of Time
Spent at Work During the Past Year
(n=660 employed persons in 1998, 676 in 1997)
Income (thousands) $75
More Time 33% 36% 30% 46%
About The same 56% 54% 49% 48%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
Less Time 11% 10% 21% 6%
60
50
40
30
20
10
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
1997 1998
60
40
20
More
Time
Less
Time
About The
Same
1997 1998
58%
33%
13%
59%
35%
13%
52%
31%
8%
6% 3% 3%
31%
60%
Somewhat Satisfied 43% 27% 32% 26%
Very Dissatisfied 4% 2% 4% 1%
38
__
What the indicator is:
An “Internet host” is a computer system through
which a user can access the Internet. However,
because multiple computers may access the
internet through a single host (such as at a work
location or university), the number of hosts does
not correspond to the number of users or to the
number of computers.
Thus, although it does not describe total Internet
usage, this indicator does enable a uniform and
broad comparison of the level of Internet use and
connectivity in various regions.
This indicator is included as a Special Focus in
this year’s What Matters because it describes
what many believe to be an important learning
and commerce tool of the future.
What the data say:
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Santa Clara County
area of Northern California (Silicon Valley)
leads this group of U.S. western counties in
Internet connectivity with nearly 400 hosts per
1,000 population in 1997.
Although Greater Phoenix has tried to adopt the
“Silicon Desert” moniker because of the high-tech
expansion and location of a number of
important companies to the region, it severely
lags in terms of Internet connectivity. At just
over 24 Internet hosts per 1,000 people, Greater
Phoenix ranks third from the bottom among this
list of western peers, and is far behind Seattle,
San Diego, Denver, and San Jose.
According to the source of the data (MIDS),
however, our region did experience an
estimated 80%-100% growth rate in Internet
hosts between January 1996 and January 1997.
SPECIAL FOCUS:
INTERNET CONNECTIVITY
Internet Hosts Per Capita
(internet hosts per 1,000 population in selected
western counties, 1997)
County (major city) 1997
Santa Clara (San Jose, CA) 398.60
Denver (Denver, CO) 85.27
San Diego (San Diego, CA) 61.60
King (Seattle, WA) 46.47
Dallas (Dallas, TX) 35.90
Multnomah (Portland, OR) 33.77
Maricopa (Greater Phoenix) 24.40
Harris (Houston, TX) 22.09
Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA) 21.72
Source: Matrix Information and Directory Services
(MIDS), Matrix Maps Quarterly 402. For further
information about this data, contact mids@mids.org.
Note: the counties listed here do not correspond directly to
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) for the major city
listed in parentheses.
39
__
Health/Health Care
8% of Greater Phoenix residents believe that health and
health care is the most important factor in our quality of life.
1998 Health/Health Care Indicators:
Persons Reporting No Health Insurance
Selected Causes of Death
Current Accreditation Status of Hospitals
Perception of Hospital Quality
Current Accreditation Status of Healthcare Plans
Perception of Healthcare Quality
Education
Families and Youth
Public Safety and Crime
Economy
HEALTH/HEALTH CARE
Environment
Transportation and Mobility
Arts, Culture, and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 9% 8%
category rank 4th 5th
’97
Survey
’98
Health and Health Care Survey
Residents of Greater Phoenix
Reporting No Health Insurance
(n=1,024)
Children/No Child Insured Uninsured Don’t Know
Refused
No Children 88% 12% 0%
Age Insured Uninsured Don’t Know
Refused
18-34 77% 22% 1%
55+ 95% 4% 1%
Income Insured Uninsured Don’t Know
Refused
$75,000 95% 5% 0%
87%
13%
0% 1%
14%
85%
41
__
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
What the indicators are:
Because they are broad indicators and fairly
common causes of death, the rates of death from
suicide, motor vehicle crash, heart disease, and
cancer can be used to gauge trends in the overall
health of the region’s citizens. Of course, each
of these indicators can be affected by unique
demographics and other regional characteristics
(i.e., an older population, higher speed limits,
environmental factors, etc.).
What the data say:
After four years of comparatively high suicide
rate data for the region, 1996 recorded a sizable
rate decrease. Despite this one-year downturn,
Greater Phoenix still far outpaces the rest of the
nation in the per capita rate at which people kill
themselves.
With regard to death from motor vehicle crash,
Greater Phoenix again saw substantial
improvement between 1995 and 1996, to a rate
which is now lower than that for the nation as a
whole. It remains to be seen, however, what
effect if any the recent increase in Arizona
highway speed limits will have on this rate in
future years.
Greater Phoenix experienced a third consecutive
year of decrease in the heart disease death rate,
an indicator in which Maricopa County stands
well below the U.S. average.
In addition, a second consecutive year of decline
in the regional death rate by cancer (“malignant
neoplasms”) was recorded in 1995-96. Again,
Greater Phoenix is lower than the national norm
for this indicator.
Selected Causes of Death
(rates per 100,000 residents in Maricopa County and
the U.S., 1992-1996)
Suicide
Motor Vehicle Crash
Heart Disease
Cancer
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services and
Arizona Department of Transportation, 1997.
U.S.
Maricopa
County
10
15
20
1993 1994 1995 1996
20
16 16
19
14
14.6
15.9
U.S.
Maricopa
County
200
250
300
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
282.5
230
285.8
243.2 236.1
280.3 281.2
230.7
217.2
278.9
U.S.
Maricopa
County
150
200
250
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
204.3
184.7 187.2
206 206.6
192.7
182.7
204.7
175.6
204.8
U.S.
Maricopa
County
10
15
20
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
14.6
11.7
17.3
11.6
17.3
11.7
18
11.8
15.3
11.5
42
__
What the indicator is:
For two consecutive years, the residents of
Greater Phoenix have indicated through the
survey conducted for this project that the quality
of the region’s health care facilities are
important to the region’s overall quality of life.
The Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Health Care Organizations provides data that
enable citizens to gauge the quality of these
institutions. The Joint Commission evaluates
the nation’s hospitals through an intensive
process in which a team of surveyors spends as
many as five days in a hospital, evaluating the
performance of the key functions that support
patient care. The survey team examines
performance documentation, interviews
organization leaders, visits patient care settings,
and discusses specific functions with hospital
staff. Hospital accreditation is re-evaluated by
the Joint Commission every three years.
What the data say:
How good are Greater Phoenix’s hospitals? All
38 of the region’s major hospitals have
completed the Joint Commission’s accreditation
process, with roughly one-quarter (9 of the 38)
receiving the highest possible rating:
Accreditation with Commendation, an honor
bestowed upon only 10% of all hospitals
nationwide. Although 17 local hospitals are
Accredited with Type 1 Recommendation, this
type of accreditation is routine, and requires
resolution of the recommendation(s) within a
given time period. No Greater Phoenix area
hospitals have been given “conditional
accreditation” or been denied accreditation by
the Joint Commission.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
New to the Quality of Life Survey in 1998, the
majority of residents in Greater Phoenix believe
that our region’s hospitals are good (56%).
Roughly equal numbers indicated that our
hospitals are either “excellent” (17%) or “fair”
(18%), while only 3% of residents said our local
hospitals are of “poor” quality.
Current Accreditation Status of Hospitals
(in Greater Phoenix, 1998)
Accredited with Commendation 9
Accredited 12
Accredited with Recommendation 17
for Improvement
Conditional Accreditation 0
Not Accredited 0
Source: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations, 1998. For detailed information on which
hospitals are included here, visit www.jacho.org
Residents’ Perception of Hospital Quality
in Greater Phoenix
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
Good 56%
Excellent 17%
Poor 3%
Don't know 6%
Fair 18%
43
__
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
What the indicator is:
Like the Joint Commission, the National
Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA)
performs quality surveys of health care plans
around the nation. The NCQA provides a three-year
accreditation to those plans/HMOs that
have met or exceeded quality standards.
Because many of Arizona’s healthcare plans
operate statewide and not just in Greater
Phoenix, the NCQA data presented here are for
all accredited health care plans operating in the
State of Arizona.
What the data say:
Seven out of 11 health care plans in Arizona
are currently in full accreditation status with the
NCQA. The remaining four plans have a one-year
accreditation, a common rating given to
those health care plans that have well-established
quality improvement programs and which have
met most of the standards. With one-year
accredited plans, NCQA provides a list of
recommendations and re-evaluates the plan 12
months later to identify progress toward full
accreditation. Currently, one Arizona
health care plan is scheduled for review. For
detailed information on which specific plans are
included in this list, visit www.ncqa.org.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
In a new question to the Quality of Life Survey in
1998, residents were asked their opinion of the
quality of the healthcare they receive in Greater
Phoenix. Forty-four percent indicated a
generally favorable or “good” opinion, while
more than one-quarter (28%) said they thought
the healthcare they receive is “excellent.”
Despite the high overall ratings given by
residents to Greater Phoenix’ hospitals and
healthcare plans, a majority expressed a feeling
of powerlessness when asked about who they
believe has the most say in the healthcare they
receive. Almost half of all respondents (48%)
indicated an insurance plan or company has the
most say in decisions regarding their care, while
only one-third (33%) said they believe that they
— the patient — have the greatest say.
Current Accreditation Status
of Health Care Plans
(in Arizona, 1998)
Full accreditation 7
One-year accreditation 4
Provisional accreditation 0
Denial 0
Scheduled for Review 1
Source: National Committee for Quality Assurance, 1998.
Perception of Healthcare Quality
in Greater Phoenix
(n=1,024)
“Who do you believe has the most say about
the healthcare you receive?”
(n=1,024)
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
Good 44%
Excellent 28%
Poor 8%
Fair 20%
Insurance plan or
company 48%
You (the
patient) 33%
Other 6%
Doctor 13%
45
__
Environment
7% of Greater Phoenix residents believe the environment is
the most important factor in our regional quality of life.
1998 Environment Indicators
Number of Days Exceeding Federal Air Quality Standards
Special Focus: Perception of Air Quality
Water Consumption
Type of Water Residents Drink at Home
Selected Land Uses
Perception of Desert Preservation Efforts
Special Focus: Urban Growth Concepts
Population Growth
Perception of Population Growth
Education
Families and Youth
Public Safety and Crime
Economy
Health/Health Care
ENVIRONMENT
Transportation and Mobility
Arts, Culture and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 6% 7%
category rank 6th 6th
’97
Survey
’98
Environment Survey
46
__
What the indicator is:
Because air pollution problems are often visible
or have detrimental health affects for certain
vulnerable populations, many citizens have
come to regard air quality as an indicator for the
overall environmental health of a region.
Three main pollutants affect air quality: carbon
monoxide, ozone and particulate matter. More
than 80% of carbon monoxide pollution is
emitted by automobiles. Similarly, the majority
of ozone pollution (not visible to the eye) also
comes from cars. The highly-visible particulate
pollution, which constitutes a large portion of
the “brown cloud,” is made up of dust from
roads, fireplaces, and vehicle emissions.
What the data say:
Although uncontrollable weather patterns have a
great deal of influence over regional air quality,
1997 had few hazardous air violation days. Zero
violations were recorded for particulate matter
and carbon monoxide, and only two days
recorded exceedence for ozone. Nonetheless, air
quality continues to be one of the most
contentious regional quality of life issues because
of both public perception and the implications of
stricter regional air quality goals set forth by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
As in the 1997 quality of life survey, most
residents of the region continue to hold a
perception that air quality in Greater Phoenix is
of “fair” or “poor” quality (88%). Just better than
one out of ten residents (12%) reported they
believe the region has “good” air quality; 1%
said “excellent.”
Number of Days per Year With an
Exceedence of Federal Air Quality Standards
(Maricopa County, 1992-97)
*24-hour standard data
Source: Maricopa County, 1998.
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Ozone
Perception of Air Quality
in Greater Phoenix
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
3 Ozone
2
5
0
3 3 2
0 2 0
6
11
5
Carbon Monoxide
0 Particulates*
2
4
6
8
10
12
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
0
2
50
40
30
20
10
Excellent Good Fair Poor
1997 1998
1%
12%
46%
42%
47%
40%
11%
1%
SPECIAL FOCUS:
PERCEPTION OF AIR QUALITY
Residents’ Perception of Regional
Air Quality as a Health Hazard
1997 1998
11% 10%
20% 19%
53% 54%
12% 12%
3% 4%
1% 1%
Residents Reporting Refraining from
Certain Outdoor Activities Because
of Poor Air Quality
1997 1998
33% 31%
66% 69%
1%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
47
__
ENVIRONMENT
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Varying little from the survey conducted one
year ago, a majority of residents in Greater
Phoenix believe that our region’s air quality is
at least “somewhat dangerous” to their health
(54%). As in 1997, nearly three out of ten
residents think the air we breathe is either “very”
or “extremely” dangerous.
Also similar to the 1997 survey, a large
percentage of local residents indicated that the
region’s poor air quality has influenced their
leisure or recreational activities. About one-third
of all persons in the survey (31%) said
they have refrained from certain outdoor
activities because of bad air.
EXTREMELY DANGEROUS
VERY DANGEROUS
SOMEWHAT DANGEROUS
REFRAINED FROM OUTDOOR ACT.
DID NOT REFRAIN
DON’T KNOW
NOT VERY DANGEROUS
DON’T KNOW
NOT AT ALL DANGEROUS
48
__
What the indicator is:
In an urbanized desert region, water is of obvious
importance; our viability would be threatened
without it. In 1974, Congress passed the safe
drinking Water Act to ensure that every water
supplier provides drinking water that meets
health-based safety standards set by the EPA. The
chart to the left indicates the estimated
population served by a community water system
that had one or more violations of EPA standards
during a fiscal year. Sustainable water
consumption is also integral to the future of our
region. To plan for the state’s continuous and
future water needs, the Arizona Department of
Water Resources annually estimates the per capita
(individual) daily consumption of water.
What the data say:
Although not all health-based water system
violations indicate an immediate cause for
concern because most contaminants are
unhealthful only if ingested at high levels over a
lifetime, the number of people exposed to some
form of health-based concern in Greater Phoenix
is large. Recent years have shown a slight decline.
Water consumption shows a second consecutive
year of decline in 1997. However many factors
account for fluctuations in water usage, including
citizen water conservation and the weather.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Instead of surveying residents about their water
consumption, the Quality of Life Survey gathers
perceptual data about an issue that rose to
prominence during the public focus groups
conducted for this project: drinking water
quality.
As in 1997, the vast majority of residents of
Greater Phoenix (77%) regularly choose to
drink water other than that which comes directly
out of their tap. About three out of ten residents
filter their water, while nearly half (46%) report
they drink bottled water.
Estimated Greater Phoenix Population Served by
a Community Water System in Violation
(Maricopa County, 1992-1997)
1,400,000
1,050,000
700,000
350,000
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
systems in violation 22 31 22 22 23 6
Source: Safe Drinking Water Information System, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Data listed are for fiscal
year. Source: Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1998.
Water Consumption
(daily per capita use in gallons in Phoenix Active
Management Area, 1991-96)
Source: Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1998.
Type of Water Greater Phoenix Residents
Report Drinking at Home
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
Daily Per Capita Use (gallons)
200
250
1992 1993 1994 1995
225
231
239
233
1996
230
50
40
30
20
10
Tap Water Filtered Bottled Other
1997 1998
26% 28%
45%
1%
23%
30%
46%
1%
326,884
1,367,433
1,204,079
1,292,873
1,249,765
1,015,833
Population
Served
49
__
ENVIRONMENT
What the indicator is:
In both 1990 and 1995, the Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG) surveyed
the region’s municipalities to identify a variety
of land-uses. More than 24 categories were
used to classify specific land uses in the region.
The figures to the left reflect those land uses
that are closely related to open space/desert.
The category “dedicated open space” also
includes mountain preserves and desert washes.
What the data say:
With the conversion of more than 42,000 acres
to residential or commercial use, between 1990
and 1995 the equivalent of 0.97 acres per hour
were developed (i.e., roughly “an acre an hour”).
During this period, the amount of dedicated open
space increased on a net-acreage basis, however,
the figure actually declined on a per capita basis.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
The 1998 survey data shows a negligible change
in public opinion about the region’s efforts to
preserve the desert environment. As in 1997,
responses split roughly into thirds: a third thinks
the region is doing poorly on desert
preservation, a third gives a “fair” assessment,
and a third believes the region is doing “good.”
Only 5% indicated the region was doing an
“excellent” job to preserve the desert.
Selected Land Uses
(acreage in Maricopa County, 1990 and 1995)
1990 1995
Dedicated open space 1,787,388 1,813,375
Commercial 108,768 109,863
Per Capita Land Use in Maricopa County
Source: Maricopa County, based on land-use reports
submitted by individual cities and towns to the Maricopa
Association of Governments, 1990 and 1995.
Perception of Desert Preservation Efforts
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1990 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995
Dedicated Commercial
open space
Agriculture Residential
0.13 0.12
0.21
0.16
0.84
0.71
0.05 0.04
Residential 287,450 328,633
Agriculture 448,152 411,133
40
30
20
10
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t
Know
1997 1998
5%
31% 31% 30%
2% 3%
31%
34%
29%
4%
50
__
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
In 1998, there has been increased discussion on
the editorial pages, in the legislature, and among
citizens regarding the issue of managing Greater
Phoenix’s physical growth differently, and how
certain changes might affect regional quality of
life. In light of this dialogue, several survey
questions were added to the Morrison Institute/
Arizona Republic Quality of Life Survey to
assess residents’ views regarding a few of the
concepts being discussed. (Note: These
questions were asked of residents in May 1998,
when discussions of several ballot initiatives
relating to growth were still very active.)
Although nearly two-thirds of residents
acknowledged being “not very” or “not at all”
familiar with the specifics of any of the possible
urban growth plans being brought forward, the
vast majority indicated they favor the broad
concept of “urban growth boundaries.” Seventy-five
percent said they think boundaries should
be imposed to spell out where development can
and cannot occur in the region.
As a follow-up to the growth boundary question,
residents were asked who they would prefer to
manage growth, state or local government.
Sixty-four percent indicated they think that local
government, not the state, should be the
primary agent responsible for growth
management.
SPECIAL FOCUS:
URBAN GROWTH CONCEPTS
“How familiar are you with any plans to
change the way urban growth is managed in
the Valley?”
“Do you think that growth boundaries
spelling out where development can and
cannot occur should be imposed?”
“Do you think that growth should be
managed by your local government or the
state?”
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
Very familiar 7% Somewhat familiar 29%
Not very
familiar 31%
Not at all
familiar 33%
Don't know 1%
Yes 75%
Don't know 7% No 18%
Local government
only 64%
Don't know 8% State government
only 28%
51
__
ENVIRONMENT
Population Estimates and Growth
(Maricopa County, 1990-97)
Source: Center for Business Research, College of Business,
Arizona State University.
Population Density
(persons per square mile, selected western
urbanized areas, 1996)
1995 1996
5,430 5,490
4,332 4,449
3,477 3,522
2,883 2,889
2,406 2,458
2,290 2,308
2,134 2,220
1,944 1,988
1,919 1,964
Source: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Oct. 1997.
Residents’ Perception of Population Growth
in Greater Phoenix
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1 9 9 5 1996 1997
Annual Growth 2.4% 2.8% 3.2% 3.6% 3 . 1 % 3.7% 3.2%
Population
2,527,000 2,621,000
2,364,000 2,450,000
2,291,000
2,229,000
2,177,000
2,706,000
LOS ANGELES/LONG BEACH
SAN JOSE
SAN DIEGO
PORTLAND
DENVER
SEATTLE
GREATER PHOENIX
HOUSTON
DALLAS
What the indicators are:
A high rate of population growth over time can
have both positive and negative influences on
quality of life. In addition to the economic
stimulus this additional population naturally
provides, negative effects on environmental and
human systems can also result.
The graph to the left depicts the Greater Phoenix
region’s population growth during the 1990s, as
estimated by ASU’s Center for Business
Research.
Figures regarding population density are
calculated by the U.S. Department of
Transportation, and based on persons per square
mile in the urbanized area of a region.
“Urbanized area” refers to the portion of the
metropolitan area that is built up and contains at
least 1,000 persons per square mile.
What the data say:
Greater Phoenix continued a long streak of
annual population growth in the 3% range in
1997. Although there was a slight decrease in
the growth rate from 1996, the region added
more than 85,000 residents during the year, a
net increase of 232 residents per day.
The population density of Greater Phoenix
increased in 1996, although roughly in
proportion to its western peer regions. Los
Angeles and San Jose still remain more than
twice as dense as Greater Phoenix, however,
Houston and Dallas are even less population-dense
than this region.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Virtually unchanged from the 1997 survey, 78%
of Greater Phoenix residents believe that the
region is growing “too fast” in 1998. About one
in five (20%) think the area’s population growth
is “about right.”
100
75
50
25
10
Too Fast About Right Too Slow No Opinion
1997 1998
77%
21%
1% 1% 1% 1%
78%
20%
53
__
Transportation and Mobility
3% of Greater Phoenix residents believe that the region’s
transportation and mobility systems are the most important
factors in our regional quality of life.
1998 Transportation and Mobility Indicators
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled
Perception of Freeway System
Annual Per Capita Miles of Transit Service
Perception of Bus Transit System
Special Focus: Commute
Education
Families and Children
Public Safety and Crime
Economy
Health/Health Care
Environment
TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY
Arts, Culture and Recreation
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 3% 3%
category rank 7th 7th
’97
Survey
’98
Transportation and Mobility Survey
40
30
20
10
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t
Know
1997 1998
54
__
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT)
(per capita in selected western urbanized areas,
1995-96)
1995 1996
30.0 29.8
25.6 25.7
24.5 24.5
22.7 22.2
21.7 21.7
21.7 21.6
20.8 21.6
20.8 21.5
21.2 21.0
Source: Federal Highway Administration, data published
October 1997.
Residents’ Perception of Greater Phoenix’s
Freeway System
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
What the indicator is:
The amount of time one spends going to and
from work can have a profound impact on
personal quality of life. If it is a short trip, the
commuter might have more time to spend with
family, or simply relax. A longer commute can
mean increased automobile expenses for gas and
maintenance, and frequently, increased driver
frustration. The Federal Highway Administration
compiles regional figures for daily vehicle miles
traveled (DVMT), and uses the figures as a gauge
of overall travel activity on the nation’s highways.
DVMT is computed by multiplying the annual
average daily traffic by the mileage for all the
interstates, highways and principal arterials for
which the annual average daily traffic is reported.
Data listed are for urbanized areas.
What the data say:
Greater Phoenix continues to be at the low end
of this peer group among per capita vehicle
miles traveled, according to the FHA data. At
21.5 miles per day on average, the Phoenix
commuter drives roughly the same distance as
his or her counterpart in Denver, Portland, Los
Angeles, and San Diego. However, while the
mileage is roughly similar among these regions,
congestion and other unique regional conditions
can have a significant impact upon how long it
takes to travel the same distance in each of these
regions. Thus, although the mileages are
similar, the commute times may not be.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
The perception that Greater Phoenix residents
hold regarding the regional freeway system
improved slightly between 1997 and 1998. As
new freeway miles continue to open, a
combined 39% of area residents now rate the
freeway system as either “excellent” or “good”
as opposed to 33% in 1997.
DALLAS
HOUSTON
SEATTLE
SAN JOSE
SAN DIEGO
LOS ANGELES
PORTLAND
GREATER PHOENIX
DENVER
4%
29%
37%
28%
2%
5%
34% 33%
1%
27%
Annual Per Capita Miles of Transit Service
(in selected western urbanized areas, 1996)
1996
32.9
22.6
22.3
15.1
14.3
13.5
9.5
Source: Federal Transit Administration Section 15 report
data, compiled and provided by Regional Public
Transportation Authority (RPTA), 1998.
Residents’ Perception of Greater Phoenix’s
Bus Transit System
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
40
30
20
10
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t
Know
1997 1998
55
__
TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY
What the indicator is:
For most residents, the amount of transit service
in the region affects their quality of life directly
or indirectly on a daily basis. For those who use
transit as a means of mobility, the impact is
more direct than for those who drive and often
unknowingly benefit from fewer vehicles on
the road because of transit.
Comparative per capita miles of transit service
provides insight into the amount of transit
service offered in various regions. The figures
are computed by dividing a region’s total annual
miles of transit by the total population for the
urbanized area.
What the data say:
Per capita transit figures for 1996 show Greater
Phoenix far behind this group of western peer
regions, at just over 9 miles of service per
capita. Seattle, Portland and Denver have more
than twice as much transit service as Phoenix.
The Dallas region saw a substantial increase in
1996 due to the opening of a new light rail
system.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
While public opinion regarding the region’s
freeway system rose slightly between the 1997
and 1998 quality of life surveys, the perception
of the regional transit system slipped. Only a
combined 18% rated it either “excellent” or
“good” in 1998, versus 23% in 1997. In
addition, the percentage of persons who
indicated they had no opinion about the quality
of the regional bus transit system increased
slightly in 1998 to 20%.
SEATTLE
PORTLAND
DENVER
SAN DIEGO
DALLAS
SAN JOSE
GREATER PHOENIX
1%
17%
21%
41%
20%
17%
35%
25%
21%
2%
SPECIAL FOCUS: COMMUTE
Residents’ Perceived Change
in Commute Time During the Past Year
(n=660)
Reported One-Way Commute Time Among
Those Who Drive Alone or Carpool
(n=580)
1997 1998
22% 15%
34% 34%
23% 26%
14% 15%
5% 7%
2% 1%
0% 2%
Residents Indicating Their Employer Gives
Them the Opportunity to Work From Home
or Telecommute
(n=660)
1997 1998
YES 27% 30%
NO 73% 70%
By Income (1998) yes no
$75,000 49% 51%
60
40
20
Increased Decreased About the
Same
Don’t Know
1997 1998
24%
13%
63%
0% 3%
56%
12%
29%
57
__
Arts, Culture and Recreation
3% of Greater Phoenix residents believe that arts, culture and
recreation are the most important factors in our regional
quality of life.
1998 Arts, Culture and Recreation Indicators:
Financial Support for the Arts
Perception of Arts and Cultural Amenities
Attendance at Art and Cultural Events, Museums
Residents Reporting a Visit to a Museum or Arts/Cultural Event
Per Capita Attendance at Professional Sporting Events
Residents Reporting Attending a Sports Event
Acreage of Parks and Golf Courses
Perception of Parks’ Quality
Education
Families and Children
Public Safety and Crime
Economy
Health/Health Care
Environment
Transportation and Mobility
ARTS, CULTURE AND RECREATION
Community
% of residents indicating “most important” 2% 3%
category rank 9th 8th
’97
Survey
’98
Arts, Culture and Recreation Survey
58
__
What the indicators are:
Arts and cultural institutions rely on a variety of
funding sources such as ticket and merchandise
sales, fundraising, contributions from individuals,
corporations, and foundations, plus grants from
local, state, and federal governments. Fifty-two
representative arts and cultural organizations
reported on public and private earned and
contributed income for 1996-97 and 1997-98. The
figures do not reflect endowment or investment
income for the non-profit organizations nor do
they include revenue from any for-profit arts and
cultural organizations.
What the data say:
A substantial increase is noted in the total figure
for the 52 organizations for 1997-98, with the
most recent year’s total 11% above 1996-97 and
13% more than 1995-96. Earned and private
funds rose substantially in 1997-98 while
government contributions decreased. The
increase in earned and private funds can be
traced to significant growth in a select number
of arts and cultural institutions, stepped-up
programs at various organizations, and a strong
regional economy. The reduction in government
funds is due more to changes in federal support,
than to funding at the state and local levels.
In 1997-98, the region’s major state and local
government sources for arts and cultural
organizations (Arizona Commission on the Arts,
Arizona Humanities Council, Phoenix Arts
Commission, and Tempe Municipal Arts
Commission) contributed over $3 million to
arts organizations in Maricopa County and
across Arizona.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Residents’ perceptions of the quality of local
arts and cultural amenities went up slightly in
1998, with a combined 69% reporting either
“excellent” or “good,” up from 65%. A
combined one in four residents believe that the
quality of arts and culture in Greater Phoenix is
“fair” or “poor.”
Earned and Contributed Support for Major
Non-Profit Arts and Cultural Institutions
(performing arts, museums, zoo, festivals and
cultural facilities in Greater Phoenix, 1996-98)
1996-97
Total $65,559,472
1997-98
Total $73,729,806
Sources: Phoenix Arts Commission, Arizona Commission
on the Arts, Morrison Institute for Public Policy, 1998.
Data were gathered from a combination of sources
including grant applications for public funds, annual
reports, contacts with organizations, and public arts and
cultural agencies. Since organizations’ fiscal years and
types and definitions of revenue differ, some reported
estimates. Some of the fluctuation in the funding available
from government and private sources is due to annual
competitive processes, the funders’ priorities, and the
extent to which they match the needs of metropolitan
Phoenix’s institutions year to year.
Residents’ Perception of the Quality of Arts
and Cultural Amenities in Greater Phoenix
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
Millions $42,069,375
$8,809,314
$14,680,784
Contributed
(government)
Earned Contributed
(private)
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
Millions $50,060,355
$6,821,230
$16,848,221
Contributed
(government)
Earned Contributed
(private)
$50
60
45
30
15
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t
Know
1997 1998
16%
53%
21%
5% 4% 6% 6%
24%
51%
14%
59
__
Attendance at Arts and Cultural Events
(in Greater Phoenix, 1995-98)
Sources: Phoenix Arts Commission, Arizona Commission
on the Arts, Morrison Institute for Public Policy, 1998.
Residents Reporting A Visit to a Local Museum or
Attending a Local Arts or Cultural Event During
the Past Year
1997 1998
YES 67% 71%
NO 33% 29%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
What the indicator is:
It has been said that a community can be judged
by its commitment to the arts and culture. In
Greater Phoenix, arts and cultural institutions,
and their support from the public, continue to
grow.
Total attendance was derived from 52
representative non-profit arts and cultural
organizations located throughout the Valley.
What the data say:
Attendance at arts and cultural events is
growing. Although the 1996-97 figure dipped
slightly from the previous year, 1997-98
participation increased notably. Attendance has
grown approximately 15% in two years. Nearly
6 million residents and visitors participated in
the cultural life of Greater Phoenix in 1997-98.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Perhaps consistent with the slight rise in the
positive perception of arts and cultural quality in
the region, more residents reported in 1998 that
they have recently attended an arts event or
visited a local museum. More than seven out of
ten residents indicate they visited a local
arts/cultural institution or museum during the
past year.
ARTS, CULTURE AND RECREATION
0
5
10
Millions
4,909,551
4,754,239
5,877,549
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
60
__
What the indicator is:
For many, professional sports teams exist as
symbols of community pride, and thus, they can
reflect on a region’s quality of life. As of 1998,
Greater Phoenix enjoys a “big city” sports
distinction shared by only a handful of other
U.S. metropolitan areas: a professional sports
franchise in the four major sports (basketball,
football, hockey, and baseball).
Per capita attendance is computed by dividing
the total attendance at all professional sports
events by the region’s population. The 1997
data include attendance figures from the
Arizona Cardinals, Arizona Rattlers, Cactus
League Spring Training, Phoenix Coyotes,
Phoenix Firebirds, Phoenix International
Speedway, Phoenix Mercury, the Phoenix Open,
and the Phoenix Suns. Because they began play
in spring, 1998, figures for the Arizona
Diamondbacks will be included in the 1998
computation of this indicator.
What the data say:
Total attendance at Greater Phoenix
professional sporting events climbed higher in
1997, to more than 4,000,000. In addition, the
per capita attendance figure rose as well, despite
an overall population growth rate in the region
greater than 3%. With the addition of the
Arizona Diamondbacks, professional sporting
attendance should jump significantly in 1998.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
Perhaps consistent with the excitement
generated by the new teams and the increase
seen in per capita attendance, the percentage of
persons indicating they have recently attended a
major sporting event in Greater Phoenix rose
slightly from 50% in 1997 to 53% in 1998. This
increase, however, is within the surveys’ +/-3.0%
margin of error.
Attendance at Professional Sporting Events
(in Greater Phoenix, 1994-97)
Per Capita 1.54 1.27 1.58 1.59
Sources: Individual teams, Maricopa County Sports
Commission and Morrison Institute for Public
Policy, 1997.
Residents Reporting Attending a Major
College or Professional Sporting Event in
Greater Phoenix During the Past Year
1997 1998
YES 50% 53%
NO 50% 47%
Source: Quality of Life Survey, Morrison Institute for
Public Policy and The Arizona Republic, 1998. Totals may
not add to 100% due to rounding.
3,649,700
Millions
3,082,549
3,947,648
3.0
3.5
4.0
1994 1995 1996 1997
4,317,149
61
__
ARTS, CULTURE AND RECREATION
What the indicator is:
Outdoor parks serve an important role in any
region’s quality of life. In addition to providing
citizens with a place to walk the dog or have a
picnic, parks also enable a convenient escape
from the urban environment.
The acreage of park and golf course land in
Greater Phoenix (not including dedicated open
spaces) provides an indicator of the amount of
land residents have available for immediate
recreation. The acres per 1,000 residents figure
is computed by dividing the total acreage of
parks and golf courses by the total population.
Data are from Maricopa County, provided by
individual cities in 1990 and 1995.
What the data say:
Measured only every five years through a land
use survey of the region’s municipalities, the
total acreage of park and golf course land
increased by more than 7,000 acres between
1990 and 1995. Despite this increase, however,
the per capita average of park recreational land
actually decreased during the period because of
a significant population increase.
What residents of Greater Phoenix
think:
The percentage of residents reporting using a
public park in the last year changed little from
1997 to 1998. Nearly four out of five residents
(79%) say they have used a park recently.
What do residents think about the overall
quality of the region’s public parks and recreation
areas? As in 1997, nearly 80% believe the parks
are either “excellent” or “good” in 1998. Only
about one in five (17%) hold an opinion which is
less than good.
Acreage of Parks and Golf Courses*
(per 1,000 residents in Maricopa County, 1990 and
1995)
Source: Data provided by individual cities to Maricopa
County in 1990 and 1995. Rate calculated by Morrison
Institute for Public Policy, 1997.
* Parks do not include designated open spaces
Residents Reporting Using a Public Park in
Greater Phoenix During the Past Year